Ne

w

Wa

ys

t

o

Ma

na

ge

S

er

ie

s

Robert AgranoffProfessor EmeritusSchool of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University–Bloomington

Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public ManagersWorking across Organizations

M A R C H 2 0 0 3

1

Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public ManagersWorking across Organizations

N E W W A Y S T O M A N A G E S E R I E S

Robert AgranoffProfessor EmeritusSchool of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University–Bloomington

March 2003

2

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

3

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Foreword ..............................................................................................5

Executive Summary ..............................................................................6

Networks and Network Management ..................................................7Scope of the Study ..........................................................................7About Networks ..............................................................................7Study Focus ......................................................................................8Importance of Networks ..................................................................8The Public Agency and the Network ................................................9Network Prospects ........................................................................10Types of Networks..........................................................................10Management Differences................................................................11Decision Making............................................................................12Planning ........................................................................................12Implementation ..............................................................................13Staffing ..........................................................................................13Organizing ....................................................................................13

A Guide to Network Participation and Operation ............................18Promoting Networks ......................................................................18Broad Participation ........................................................................19Communication ............................................................................19Agency Head Role ........................................................................19Brokering Decisions and Results ....................................................21Decision Process ............................................................................21Network Power ..............................................................................22Negotiated Support ........................................................................22Developing Trust ............................................................................22Action Builds Trust ........................................................................23Problematic Trust............................................................................24Enlisting Technical Expertise ..........................................................25Finding Expertise ............................................................................25Informal Expertise Development ....................................................25

Ten Lessons on How to Manage in Networks ....................................28

Appendix: Research Method ..............................................................32

Endnotes ............................................................................................34

About the Author ..............................................................................35

Key Contact Information....................................................................36

4

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

5

F O R E W O R D

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

F O R E W O R DF O R E W O R DF O R E W O R D

March 2003

On behalf of the IBM Endowment for The Business of Government, we are pleased to present this report,“Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working across Organizations,” by Robert Agranoff.

This report comes at an opportune time. Increasingly, effective government means collaborating with othersin order to achieve a common purpose. In its January 2003 report to Congress on the major managementchallenges facing the federal government, the General Accounting Office wrote, “Promoting effective partner-ships with third parties in the formulation and design of complex national initiatives will prove increasinglyvital to achieving key outcomes...”

The number of networks sprouting up across the nation is growing. This report describes 12 such networks,all located in the Midwest. They range from nonprofits to intergovernmental entities to government organi-zations. Going a step further, the report presents the critical elements of success for managers to deliverresults in a collaborative environment. Most public executives today have been trained to deliver results viathe traditional hierarchy. And they got to where they are by performing well within their own organizations.But to be successful tomorrow, government executives must increasingly be able to deliver through networks,partnerships, and the use of collaboration. Already, one of the core qualifications for acceptance into thefederal government’s Senior Executive Service is the ability to “create coalitions.” In this report, ProfessorAgranoff provides a road map to help today’s and tomorrow’s leaders understand where this new roadleads—and how to get there.

We trust that his report will be both informative and helpful to all government executives faced with thechallenging task of working across organizations. There is much to learn about the power of leveraging networks.

Paul Lawrence Ian LittmanCo-Chair, IBM Endowment for Co-Chair, IBM Endowment forThe Business of Government The Business of Governmentpaul.lawrence@us.ibm.com ian.littman@us.ibm.com

F O R E W O R D

6

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Do public managers operate differently in inter-organizational networks than they do in the orga-nizations where they do most of their work? Thisbasic question is asked from the perspective ofstate and federal government officials as they work with other agencies to access information,exchange resources, and solve vexing problemsthat occur at the boundaries of their agencies.

Based on an examination of 12 networks based inMidwest states, network processes are examined,relating to how managing networks are different,how networks are promoted, how trust replaceshierarchical authority, how decisions are brokered,and how technology is accessed. Network manage-ment is considered to be a different type of non-hierarchical management, where information andexpertise is substituted for authority structure, througha self-organizing process, held together by mutualobligation that develops over time, by reachingconsensus-based decisions, and by blendingknowledge bases from different organizational arenas into innovative technologies that canbecome the “DNA” of networks. The managersinterviewed for this report supported these generalobservations and offered numerous useful sugges-tions for other managers who work in networks.

Public managers’ searches for knowledge-basedsolutions are increasingly outside of their organiza-tions. As a result, managers will spend more andmore of their time in knowledge management working across organizations. There is, therefore, a growing need to enhance the knowledge base in network management through observation and study.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

7

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Scope of the StudyDo public managers operate differently in inter-organizational networks than they do in their homeorganizations? Is management in networks differentfrom that of hierarchical organizations? Some mayanswer no, because both entail a type of boundaryspanning and “dealing with people” that is com-mon to traditional management functions. Othersrespond definitely yes, because of the absence of all the trappings of standard management—forexample, hierarchy, authority, and direction. Onestate official said, “We manage by consensus in the Partnership for Rural Nebraska,” one of the net-works studied in this report. “In my department Isupervise and direct, based on the legal authorityvested in my position … in the network I am anequal partner.”

The study investigates public managers as they participate in collaborative undertakings with othergovernments and the nongovernmental sector. Theseexperiential lessons about “network management”are derived from the responses of managers in fed-eral government, state government, local govern-ment, and universities, as well as nongovernmentalorganization (NGO) officials, as they work togetherto approach issues that cross the boundaries oftheir organizations. The 12 focal networks studiedoperate in Midwest states. “Networks Studied,” atthe end of this section provides a thumbnail sketchof each one.

How to manage in a network is an important 21st-century issue because of networks’ prevalence in themanagerial enterprise. No single agency or organiza-

tion at any level of government or the private sectorhas a monopoly on the mandate, resources, or infor-mation to deal with the most vexing of public prob-lems. Moreover, a century of knowledge building in management—public and private—has focused on hierarchy and its derivatives, for example, POSD-CORB (Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing,COordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting). Such tar-geted focus on running the single organization wasappropriate during a time when the concept of man-agement—as a guidance function—within organiza-tions was developed. The importance of organizationmanagement is likely to continue. But research alsodemonstrates a parallel importance of managersworking across organizational boundaries. One studyof collaborative management in economic develop-ment found that about 20 percent of public man-agers’ time is spent in collaborative activity outside ofthe home government organization.1 In a number ofpublic policy arenas—for example, environmentalprotection—an increasing portion of this time is spentin formal networks.2 As a result, both a knowledgebase3 and a practical literature4 in network manage-ment are beginning to emerge.

About NetworksThe study focuses on networks of public organiza-tions, involving formal and informal structures,composed of representatives from governmentaland nongovernmental agencies working interde-pendently to exchange information and/or jointlyformulate and implement policies and programsthat are usually designed for action through theirrespective organizations. However, not all networksare alike. Some come together primarily to provide

Networks and Network Management

8

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

information and some do more by also mutuallydeveloping capabilities, whereas others addition-ally provide new programming opportunities fortheir component organizations, and still othersmake joint decisions and take action.

Networks bring the nonprofit and for-profit sectorstogether with government in a number of policyarenas, including economic development, healthcare, criminal justice, human services, informationsystems, rural development, environmental protec-tion, biotechnology, transportation, and education.Their activities are purposeful efforts to accessknowledge and technology and to guide, steer, con-trol, or manage. And the public and private actorsinvolved do not act separately but in conjunction,operating as a network. Since the networks understudy involve government, interest is in patternsthat emerge from the governing activities of theactors, for example, codiscovery, coregulation, costeering, coproduction, cooperative manage-ment, and public-private partnerships.

Study FocusIn this report, we do not analyze the structure and operation of the Midwest networks but try toanswer important generic managerial questions that emanate from their experiences. As a result,the report does not go beyond a categorization-by-decision structure. The report emphasizes generalmanagement processes. In particular, managerswere asked how various tasks and roles in the pro-motion and operation of these networks are differ-ent from their other public role, that of workingwithin bureaucratic organizations (see “Appendix:Research Method”). Among the many issues dis-cussed, the following questions guide this report:

1. How do public managers promote networks?That is, are there important organizing, conven-ing, and operational issues that are essential formaintenance of these bodies?

2. What processes of management are differentand tend to replace traditional approacheswhen working in networks?

3. How do managers working together acrossorganizational lines replace authority withmutual understanding or trust levels so thatthey can work together and respect oneanother?

4. How do network managers broker decisionsand results? In other words, what processes do they engage in to reach agreement and ultimately decisions?

5. Since information exchange is a key element of networking, how are technical information,knowledge, and expertise mobilized?

6. What operational information and advice can the network managers studied offer otherpublic managers about the techniques andapproaches they have experienced?

Answers to these questions will not only help otherpublic managers as they operate in networks, butadd to the network management knowledge base.

Importance of NetworksWhy do public managers find themselves workingin networks today? One force is the changingnature of work from labor-based production andservices to the integration of knowledge-basedsymbolic-analytic work, which places greater valueon human capital. Knowledge is specialized andmust be integrated collaboratively to solve manyproblems, a core issue in change management. Asa result, government agencies, once thought to bethe monopolistic holders of key information andexpertise relating to public issues, now possess onlypart of the information needed to solve problems.

A second force is the changing nature of government.The 20th century was a time of growth of welfarestates and, consequently, government agencies andprograms at national and state levels. The govern-ment took on more and more problems and createdmany new policy areas. As public efforts grew, how-ever, it became apparent that the government couldnot garner the resources, investments, expertise, orcommitments needed to solve all public problems.New structures involving several organizationsbecame one of a number of collaborative efforts to try to approach some of society’s “wicked prob-lems” or challenges that could not be handled bydividing them into simple pieces, in isolation fromone another.5

A related factor is the idea that government shouldnot only operate programs but also should take onmore of a developmental or steering role, promoting,regulating, and encouraging various types of non-

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

9

governmental activity and operations. This engage-ment philosophy has, in many fields, unfolded inthe 1980s and 1990s, and it has led to greater vari-ety in government-nongovernment organizationalinteraction.

A number of research streams have also confirmedthe prominence of networks. The urban-politicswork of Clarence Stone on regime theory is semi-nal. In his study of urban power, he concludes thatin a fragmented world where power, resources,knowledge, and the other means to solve problemsreside with so many individuals and organizations,“the issue is how to bring about enough cooperationamong disparate community elements to get thingsdone—and to do so in the absence of an over-arching command structure or a unifying system of thought.” He labeled this process as “gover-nance,” which is the ability to combine the neces-sary elements toward a result, that is, the capacityto assemble and use needed resources for a policyinitiative.6

Intergovernmental researchers have also recognizedthe importance of networks, often operating incomplex and overlapping fashions7 and, in manyways, changing the traditional role of governmentsand their links with nongovernmental organizationsand with the various tools and strategies that leadto different public-private configurations.8 A studyby Radin and associates reveals how federal-state-private councils in rural development have led to many program changes and demonstrationapproaches.9 In the same vein, economic develop-ment research at the state and local levels hasdemonstrated how networked officials enhancetheir economies by stimulating private sector action,engaging in partnerships with such organizations as chambers of commerce and industry groups, and jointly formulating developmental policies inhuman resource development, technology advance-ment, and global marketing.10 Finally, research inenvironmental policy also demonstrates that emer-gent solutions to such problems as nonpoint sourcepollution (for example, agricultural chemicals) and watershed and forest management can beapproached by formally and informally conveninggovernment agencies, conservation advocacygroups, industry representatives, land developers,and the scientific community into joint bodies.11

The Public Agency and the NetworkOperating in networks is changing the nature ofgovernment organizations, at least with regard toshared policies and programs. Of primary impor-tance is that representatives of public agenciesbecome partners with other organization represen-tatives in examining problems, establishing strate-gies, and formulating policy responses. The publicorganization actor often serves as a convener, butonce the process begins those persons are amongthe many participants.

Second, the public agency representative does nothave nearly the monopoly or the corner on techni-cal expertise that previous public administratorspossessed. Many stakeholders—such as scientists, organizational researchers, interest groups, andadvocacy groups—bring needed knowledge andinformation to the table.

Third, resources are more dispersed. In the past, a government agency possessed the major alloca-tion or appropriation needed to launch a program,and money (and indirectly control) was dispensedthrough a chain of agencies, public and non-public.Resources are now more dispersed throughout thenetwork, as government increasingly tries to use itsrole in governance to leverage investments and brokerprogram actions through other government agen-cies and a host of nongovernmental organizations.

Fourth, program implementation occurs throughmany of the same organizations that were involvedin pooling knowledge and technologies, enhancingcapacities, or in formulating strategies and policies.As government has taken on more of a guidancerole, and has encouraged nongovernmental invest-ments, the carrying out function is no longer exclu-sively through the familiar intergovernmental chainof public organizations or by contract or mutualagreement. The process involves a variety of grantees,contractees, and, most important, collaboratingpartners.

Some analysts have concluded that this renders thegovernment agency unimportant and a bystander to a series of private actions. Networks do change the role of government in democratic systems.Government agencies are not, however, marginalplayers in the multiple organization process. They

10

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

remain core actors, because they continue to pos-sess a legitimacy to approach public problems andpolicy solutions, retain important legal authority toset rules and norms, contribute financial resourcesto programs, and retain some of the informationand scientific knowledge needed to approach prob-lems. This research reveals that government agen-cies are almost always among the key partners innetworks.

Network ProspectsThe future holds even greater promise for these collaborative structures, and, therefore, a body ofknowledge about how to manage them is importantfor public management. The demand for knowl-edge will increase as an important resource, as willthe demand for new capital that resides in humanresources or knowledge workers. Knowledge capi-tal will continue to need some form of collectivethat will bring it together. Knowledge is nonhierar-chical in that it is required for a situation whereprofessional performance needs to be applied,regardless of organizational position, social status,or possession of wealth. As a result, portableknowledge application plus rapid access to infor-mation can and has led to the disintegration oflarge-scale organizations into more flexible struc-tures, such as the networks studied here. In thefuture, several different types of organizations are expected to interlock along these lines. Thesetrends will also accelerate the need for greaterstudy of the new forms of organizing and operat-ing. As Peter Drucker concludes, “Despite all thepresent talk of ‘knowledge management,’ no oneyet really knows how to do it.”12 Finally, thesestructures will increasingly be used to deal withsocial problems. David Korten concludes thatknowledge and reformation have provided power-ful new collective intelligence that can be used tomaster social and institutional discovery and inno-vation through problem solving.13 A portion of thisbody of knowledge entails a newer form of man-agement knowledge that can be applied in bothpublic and private institutions.

Types of NetworksNot all networks are alike, as other researchershave also discovered.14 Of the networks examinedfor this study (see “Types of Networks Studied”),three limit their interorganizational actions to

exchange of information. The Darby Partnership(Darby), the Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance(LPRCA), both environmental or natural resourcenetworks, and the Indiana Economic DevelopmentCouncil (IEDC) are included in this category.Informational networks tend to involve large num-bers of stakeholders, many of whom have quiteopposite views, who come together to exchangeinformation, examine the depths of a given prob-lem, and explore “possible actions” that stakehold-ers might take. Such actions are not mandated butare almost always voluntary and exclusively takenwithin the partner agencies. As such, informationalnetworks tend to be broad convening bodies or“sounding boards,” but never decision bodies. Inmany ways they are like councils of organizationsthat most volunteers are familiar with, such as ahealth and welfare council. Nevertheless, with

Types of Networks Studied

1. Informational Networks: Partners come togetherexclusively to exchange agency policies andprograms, technologies and potential solutions.Any actions that might be taken are entirely upto the agencies on a voluntary basis.

Darby, LPRCA, IEDC

2. Developmental Networks: Partner informationand technical exchange are combined witheducation and member service that increasesmember capacity to implement solutions withinhome agencies or organizations.

PRN, IRDC, IGIC, IEN

3. Outreach Networks: Partners come together toexchange information and technologies,sequence programming, exchange resourceopportunities, pool client contacts, andenhance access opportunities that lead to newprogramming avenues. Implementation ofdesigned programs is within an array of publicand private agencies themselves.

SCEIG, USDA/RD

4. Action Networks: Partners come together tomake interagency adjustments, formally adoptcollaborative courses of action, and/or deliverservices along with exchanges of informationand technologies.

EDARC, DMMPO, ICN

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

11

the exception of not deciding, they experience theexchange and information/knowledge managementpatterns as other networks.

Three of the networks studied, in stark contrast,take the kind of joint action that is commonly associated with a number of other collaborativeorganizations, for example, partnerships and jointventures. The Indiana Electronic Data Access ReviewCommittee (EDARC), the Des Moines MetropolitanPlanning Organization (DMMPO), and the IowaCommunications Network (ICN) all have developedinteractive working procedures to collectivelyadopt programs and to implement them throughcomponent organizations. To be sure, these actionnetworks also are heavily engaged in informationexchange, capacity development, and discoveringnew programming opportunities, but they are dis-tinguished by their ability to engage in collectiveaction. In many ways their decision componentmakes them the most different and means that theyhave the most difficulty achieving aims, becausethey make collective win/lose decisions amonggovernments and organizations, and they shareimplementation with their partner organizations.

Standing between these two types of networks aretwo others, one that exchanges information andincreases partner capabilities to take own-sourceactions, and one that not only increases capacitybut develops new program venues that are imple-mented through partner agencies. The former category, developmental networks, includes thePartnership for Rural Nebraska (PRN), the IndianaRural Development Council (IRDC), the IowaGeographic Information Council (IGIC), and theIowa Enterprise Network (IEN). Each relies heavilyon partners implementing those strategies andcapabilities developed within the network itself,and as such, the network goes beyond the mereexchange of information.

The latter category, outreach networks, includes theOhio Small Communities Environmental InfrastructureGroup (SCEIG) and the Nebraska U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Rural Development (USDA/RD) program. These networks not only exchange infor-mation, technologies, and opportunities, but theycarve out programming strategies for clients (forexample, funding packages, usable technologies)that are carried out elsewhere, usually by the part-

ner organizations. In other words, potential actionframeworks for clients are developed, but action is not formally adopted by the network, it is merelysuggested. Managerially, both of these types of net-works are like consortia or confederations whereinformation and potential action is collectivelyarrived at but not taken by the bodies themselves.In terms of operational decisions, both of thesetypes experience most of the managerial challengesof all types of networks, except that they stop shortof those binding decisions that imply joint action.

Management DifferencesWhen administrators from different agencies cometogether to solve problems or to inform one another,most operate differently than in their home agencies.One informational network leader said, “Inside, Imanage a program, and I have a line role. When in a partnership I dispense and exchange informa-tion.” Another said, “I am a typical ‘fed,’ withadministrative structure, rules, programs … whereasin this [network] group the activity is exchange,equal input.” Another state official stated, “At thenetwork there are no bosses, many players.” A fed-eral official stated, “We do loans, fund and operateprograms within the agency. At the network webuild capacity.” Another state official said, “We doprograms and contracts here. In the network I amnot the answer.” All of these responses suggest thatanother type of management is going on in thesenetworks.

What kind of management is it? First and foremost,agency representatives come to the table as dele-gates from their agency and form a “pooled” author-ity system that is based more on expertise than onposition. In most of the networks studied, despitedifferential informal authority, official authority ismore or less one delegate, one opportunity to influ-ence the recommended/agreed course of action.One federal official said, “I am the orchestra leaderin [agency], in the Council I am a partner.” Authoritygenerally flows in the following manner. Agencydesignation to the network usually brings a measureof delegated authority, that is, ability to speak onbehalf of and to commit agency resources. Thatseat at the table offers the venue to offer homeagency information and technical expertise to the joint experience. Potential resources—fundingopportunities, access to programs, new technologies,

12

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

educational opportunities—are entered into thetransactional mix. These inputs are thrust into thediscussions, which are joint learning experiencesbased on exchange. Then, if the network takes aform of action—for example, outreach and deci-sion networks—the accommodations are made. Inthis sense, authority is based on expertise and theability to reach agreement as a collective. Theseagreements carry more “moral” weight becausethey have the backing of many experts and man-agers even though traditional program authoritynormally remains in the participating organizations.One state official concluded that “while [the net-work] provides the input, and we work as a team,and try to reach agreement, … this agency is thefinal decision maker.”

Decision MakingDecision making is different in networks, wherereaching ultimate overall agreement based on jointlearning from many organizational representatives isparamount. In the networks where actual joint deci-sions are made, discussion, discovery, adjustment,and consensus are clearly the rule. When authorityis delegated and divided and based on expertise,

there are few alternatives. Because most networkparticipants usually come together with someshared beliefs, this is easier than it would appear onthe surface. Where strident differences are present—for example, between landowners and environmen-talists in natural resource networks—the processdoes not work as well. The transportation networkresorts to voting whereas natural resource networkslike the Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance (see “Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance: AnInformational Network”) have no choice but toremain informational. In general, networks dodecide on programs of mutual benefit or of techni-cal and informational value, and some make policyrecommendations. These decisions are mostly onesthat all can agree upon. One network leader said,“Our decisions come naturally as a product of ourdiscussions and interventions. We only vote once ayear when we adopt our work plan.”

PlanningPlanning in all of the different types of networks is vision and problem driven. “The work plan is a catalyst for what we do.” The partners cometogether and articulate what they want to work on,

The Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance (LPRCA): An Informational Network

The Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance is a consor-tium of three natural resource districts and seven stateagencies in Nebraska, joined together in an effort toaddress natural resource management issues in theLower Platte River Corridor area. With the passage ofan interlocal agreement, the Lower Platte RiverCorridor Alliance was established in 1996. Memberscontribute to an administrative fund totaling $65,000annually to support a coordinator’s position for theAlliance, and agree to provide technical and otherassistance within their authority to the coordinator.Quarterly meetings are convened to share progressreports on programs and projects of all involved.

The Alliance seeks to assist counties and communitiesspanning 100 river miles to become fully informedabout the natural-resources impact of their decisions,and to promote consistent decision making acrossjurisdictions so as to promote natural-resources con-servation in the river corridor area. The Alliance pro-

vides a forum for concerned, interested citizens andlocal elected officials to bring their different perspec-tives to the table and seek common solutions. Thegoals of the alliance are: to foster increased under-standing of the Platte River’s resources; to supportlocal efforts to achieve comprehensive and coordi-nated land use to protect the long-term vitality of theriver; and to promote cooperation among local, state,and federal organizations, private and public, to meetthe needs of the many and varied interests in the rivercorridor. The Alliance furnishes easy access to relevantinformation on key issues and proposed projects,opportunities for dialogue and discussion for individu-als wishing to influence the decision-making process,and a forum for consensus. Community participationis an integral part of this process. Opportunities forpublic involvement include river tours, a water qualitygolf tournament, stakeholder summit meetings, andregional planning workshops and charettes.

Source: www.lowerplatte.org

13

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

and the collective body by agreement or a tokenvote adopts it. For example, one of the rural devel-opment networks, PRN, has a steering committeeof second-level executives and an education com-mittee composed of program specialists. The formergroup agrees on the networks’ work programwhereas the latter plans an annual Rural Institute.The executive committee composed of the ratifiersof the overall agreement approves the programmingdecisions made by program and second-level staff.In each process it is a matter of finding and tappingavailable expertise and delegated authority. Planningthen becomes organizing what the network hasdecided to do. One network coordinator related,“In my other work, in this organization, we admin-istrators lay out what we need to do to make pro-grams work. In the [network] a committee planseverything.”

ImplementationProgramming, or what might be called networkimplementation, follows planning, and in all typesof networks it is normally through participatingagencies. Most of the networks studied have eithera minuscule staff presence, usually one coordina-tor, or program support comes out of the homeagency of whoever is chair or president. Meetingarrangements, the listserv, and a website are thenorm for this activity. The real programs that flowfrom the decisions of a network, which need to becarried out, happen back in the agencies them-selves. For example, both the rural developmentand natural resource networks, which are not deci-sion makers, rely on substate, state, and federalagencies to do the actual remediation or develop-ment work needed to deal with their challengesand agreed courses of action. In the same fashion,the Iowa Communications Network, an action net-work, is the data transmission and narrowcastagency for dozens of federal, state, and local gov-ernment agencies that are responsible for their ownprogramming. With this type of programming, onestate official reported, “I have less control overwhat is done by the members because they areagencies and I can’t tell them what to do.”

StaffingStaffing follows programming. With the exceptionof the action networks, where there is a larger staff

presence, once what to do is decided, one must goback to the table and see who is willing to take onthe various tasks beyond core maintenance activi-ties. “We rely on each partner to identify and offerexpertise.” In a network with pooled resources andexpertise, this is not merely a matter of asking for“volunteers.” Indeed, the process rarely works thatway. More often in the course of the discussion ofan issue, participating agencies make the groupaware of staff within their organization who mightcontribute time and/or expertise. Several of the net-works rely on the federal-state Extension Servicelocated at land grant universities in this way,whereas others point out the expertise of planners,engineers, information specialists, finance experts,and many others. Then it is a question of “convinc-ing the person to contribute some of their [agency]time or resources to the overall cause.”

OrganizingFinally, organizing flows from all the other manage-ment activities. In a network, the form of organiza-tion more closely resembles a voluntary organizationthan a bureaucracy. Officers are “elected” on arotating basis. Normally, that means tapping onewho has been immediately active and has the tech-nical and political respect of the other networkactivists. Often it is someone who can also com-mand one’s agency or university resources. Otherofficers may or may not be utilized, and their pres-ence is more or less a formality beyond forming anexecutive committee to decide between meetings.

The real organization within most networks isthrough its voluntary committees, where the basicand detailed work gets done. For example, theIowa Geographic Information Council operateswith the following committees: Executive, RemoteSensing, Newsletter, Conference, Strategic Planning,and Clearinghouse. The MPO transportation net-work organizes with two committees: Policy andTechnical. The Indiana Rural Development Councilorganizes with these committees: Executive, Com-munity Visitation, Housing, Environmental Infra-structure, Leadership Development, and AgriculturalDevelopment. The particular structure for each network is a product of a self-organizing processwhere partners bring issues to the table and thegroup decides to focus on specific issues. Then spe-cialization and expertise is pooled into committees.

14

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

It is an incremental process. Initially, discussantsreport that the process resembles “herding cats.”One state official asserted that eventually “ouractivities fall into categories, more or less, and weagree to a structure of some kind, at some time,about when we decide on our work plan.”

Working in a network is thus quite different formost managers, who are normally more heavilyengaged in their own structures and operations. Theonly exception to this would be a notable numberof agency “boundary spanners,” or staff who repre-sent their department/agency nearly full time as a

liaison person to other organizations and who are network participants. Their inside and outsidework is in many ways similar as they reach acrossand represent their program as full-time partner or network participant. Only about 10 percent of the informants fell into this category. But even the boundary spanner who does different work iswithin a hierarchy with standard managementprocesses as he/she communicates with the homeorganization. In the network, all managers face anonhierarchical self-organizing situation where“jointly agreed focus and purpose prevails.”

Networks Studied

1. accessIndianaEnhanced DataAccess ReviewCommittee(EDARC)

2. Des MoinesAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(DMMPO)

Portal to Indiana Stategovernment informa-tion; EDARC regulatesaccessIndiana,(www.state.in.us) sup-ported by a contractorfor web development;sets policies foraccessIndiana, reviews,modifies, and approvesaudit agency agree-ments; encouragespublic and private use;and establishes fees forenhanced access topublic records.

Responsible for trans-portation planning for metropolitan areaunder §450 of Title 23of U.S. Code (TEA-21)through itsTransportation Policy and TechnicalCommittees.

Action

Action

State Government

IntergovernmentalAgreement

Indiana State Library; IndianaDepartments of Administration,Bureau of Motor Vehicles,Secretary of State, IndianaCommission on Public Records,Indiana Commission for HigherEducation; Chair, IndianaIntelnet Commission; Divisionof Information Technology;Office of Attorney General;State Budget Agency; and six citizen/NGO/media representatives

Thirteen cities, three county government members,and two associate cities.Advisory participants includeIowa Department ofTransportation, U.S. FederalHighway Administration, U.S. Federal Transit Authority,Des Moines MetropolitanTransportation Authority, andDes Moines InternationalAirport.

Name ofNetwork

Description andPurpose Type

EnablingAuthority Primary Agencies

15

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Networks Studied (continued)

3. IndianaEconomicDevelopmentCouncil (IEDC)

4. Indiana RuralDevelopmentCouncil (IRDC)

5. IowaCommunicationsNetwork (ICN)

6. Iowa EnterpriseNetwork (IEN)

Created by the IndianaGeneral Assembly toserve as a research andideas consultant forstatewide public-private economicdevelopment strategicplanning.

Provides a forum toaddress rural issues,seeks community inputto identify problems,establishes partnershipsto find solutions,enables partners to take action, andeducates the public on rural issues.

A statewide, state-administered, fiber-optics network thatenables authorizedusers such as hospitals,state and federal gov-ernment, publicdefense armories,libraries, schools, andhigher education tocommunicate via high-quality, full-motionvideo; data; high-speedInternet communica-tions; and telephones.

Supports home-basedand micro enterprises;provides mutual assis-tance and informationthrough conferences,workshops, and weblinks.

Informational

Developmental

Action

Developmental

Not-for-profit501c(3)

IntergovernmentalAgreement/Not-for-profit 501c(3)

State Government

Not-for-profit501c(3)

Seventy-two-member board of directors from state govern-ment, universities, private sec-tor, business and labor interestgroups, and NGOs. Chaired bythe governor. Lt. Governor ischief executive officer of theCouncil (Note: in Indiana the Lt. Governor is head of theDepartment of Commerce andis Commissioner of Agriculture).

U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development, U.S.Small Business Administration,U.S. Department of Agriculture/Rural Development Service,Indiana Commissioner ofAgriculture, IndianaDepartment of Health/RuralHealth, Indiana Department ofCommerce, four local govern-ment elected officials, eightstate legislative and U.S.Congress staff appointees, andfour for-profit appointees.

Iowa Telecommunications andTechnology Commission, IowaPublic Television, Iowa NationalGuard, Iowa Department ofCorrections, Iowa universitiesand colleges, Iowa Departmentof Transportation, U.S. VeteransAdministration, U.S. SocialSecurity Administration, publicschools, public libraries, andothers.

U.S. Small BusinessAdministration, IowaDepartment of EconomicDevelopment, Iowa RuralDevelopment Council, IowaArea Development Group,Small Business DevelopmentCenter–Des Moines, U.S.Department of Agriculture/Rural Development, IowaDepartment of Cultural Affairs,and micro business owners.

Name ofNetwork

Description andPurpose Type

EnablingAuthority Primary Agencies

16

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Networks Studied (continued)

7. IowaGeographicInformationCouncil (IGIC)

8. Lower PlatteRiver CorridorAlliance (LPRCA)

9. Partnership forRural Nebraska(PRN)

Clearinghouse for co-ordinated geographicinformation systems(GIS), data sharing,exploring standards,and facilitating cooperation amongIowans who use GIS.

Fosters the develop-ment and implementa-tion of locally drawnstrategies, actions, and practices to protect and restore theriver’s sources; fostersincreased understand-ing of the river’sresources; supportslocal efforts to achievecomprehensive andcoordinated land use;promotes cooperationamong local, state, andfederal organizations,private and public, tomeet the needs of themany and varied inter-ests of the corridor.

Cooperative commit-ment to address ruralopportunities and chal-lenges identified byrural Nebraskans; towork together to meetthose challenges andprovide resources andexpertise to enhancedevelopment opportunities.

Developmental

Informational

Developmental

State Government

Intergovernmental Agreement

IntergovernmentalAgreement

Representatives on 25-memberboard include university/privatecolleges, state government,planning organizations, countygovernments, local govern-ments, federal government, private businesses, and community colleges.

Lower Platte South, LowerPlatte North, andPapio–Missouri NaturalResources Districts; NebraskaDepartments of: NaturalResources, Health and HumanServices, EnvironmentalQuality; Nebraska State MilitaryDepartment; and University ofNebraska Conservation andSurvey Division. Ex-officio links with U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, U.S. Geo-logical Survey, U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, and U.S. NationalPark Service.

State of Nebraska—Departments of Agriculture,Economic Development,Environmental Quality, Healthand Human Services Systems,and the Rural DevelopmentCommission; federal govern-ment—USDA/RD and NaturalResources ConservationServices; the University ofNebraska; NebraskaDevelopment Network.

Name ofNetwork

Description andPurpose Type

EnablingAuthority Primary Agencies

17

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Networks Studied (continued)

10. SmallCommunitiesEnvironmentalInfrastructureGroup (SCEIG)

11. The DarbyPartnership(Darby)

12. United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture/RuralDevelopmentNebraskaOutreachPrograms(USDA/RD)

Coordinated efforts toassist small govern-ments in Ohio in theirdevelopment, improve-ment, and maintenanceof their water andwastewater systems.

Facilitated by theNature Conservancy ofOhio, this partnershipof federal, state, andlocal agencies, envi-ronmental groups, andwatershed citizensshare information andresources to addressstresses to the streamsand serve as a “thinktank” for conservationefforts in the watershed.

Uses outreach to lever-age funds of other pro-grams to augment itsfunding as well asassisting rural coopera-tives, value-addingbusinesses, smallmunicipal water sys-tems, public facilities,and housing for smallcommunities.

Outreach

Informational

Outreach

Non-formal group

Non-formal group

FederalGovernment

State of Ohio Water Develop-ment Authority, Ohio Environ-mental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of NaturalResources, U.S. federal-stateExtension Service/Ohio StateUniversity, U.S. Department ofAgriculture/Rural Development,U.S. Department of Commerce,Economic DevelopmentAdministration, private lendingrepresentatives, university ruralcenters, nongovernmental orga-nizations, and regional devel-opment districts.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources ConservationService, Ohio Department ofNatural Resources, OhioEnvironmental ProtectionAgency, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, six county Soil andWater Conservation Districts,City of Columbus, Columbusand Franklin County MetroParks, Mid-Ohio RegionalPlanning Commission, TheNature Conservancy, The DarbyCreek Association, and severalNGOs.

USDA/RD, Partnership for RuralNebraska, NebraskaDepartment of EconomicDevelopment, Nebraska RuralDevelopment Commission,Nebraska DevelopmentNetwork, University ofNebraska–Extension,Development Districts,Nebraska colleges, and countyand city governments.

Name ofNetwork

Description andPurpose Type

EnablingAuthority Primary Agencies

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

18

Promoting NetworksNetworks do not just happen, but many otherexperiences suggest that they must be developed.Those composed of public managers will need tobe advanced by some of the managers. This isbecause few networks have a pre-existing mandateto operate. With the exception of the Des MoinesArea Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)and the Iowa Communications Network, the othernetworks are based on voluntary action, a nonprofitcharter, or voluntary intergovernmental agreements.Their operation and continuation therefore depends on self-generated actions. They have to be “heldtogether.” This requires a heavy dose of develop-mental activity on the part of some partners whoare champions and promoters as well as partners.

All networks depend on one or a small number ofchampions. A state program head of a federalagency in one of the rural development networksstated that every network must “have a catalyticleader who has a passion for it.” Another state offi-cial said, “We need an overall champion, and eachsubcommittee project needs a mini champion!”Even though authority is more equal in networks,and is based primarily on expertise, someoneneeds to come forward and help orchestrate avision, follow through on the work plan, contactkey partners, orchestrate meetings, and so on.Ordinarily this is someone who holds an adminis-trative position in one key agency, can commandmodest professional staff resources if needed, hascontrol over potential donated in-house clericaland communication resources, and has the techni-cal or professional respect of the other members. Anetwork champion can be but is not always the

convener or chairperson. Often it is the director of one of the participating agencies who, throughstaff time, holds the modest network records, oper-ates the listserv, and maintains the website. In othercases it is a “volunteer” who has the capacity to dothe work within the organization, for example, afederal or state agency/program or unit of a collegeor university. In a few cases, the role of championhas rotated with the chair, who is expected to betemporary champion. The risk is that “with an inactive chair we go a year or so with very littleactivity.” As in the case of voluntary organizationcommittee work, behind most long-term networkslies the energy work of a network champion.

Networks need promoters around their champions.One network promoter referred to himself and others like him as “vision keepers.” “These are thepeople at the middle or working level of federaland state agencies where the links up and downhave to be made.” As persons who work with pro-grams on a daily basis, they have the technicalknowledge to share with others. They do more thanbe present and present. They provide a technicaland organizing energy that champions need tokeep the process going. They become involved indeveloping joint information events and activities,and engage extensively in information sharing, areat meetings to access information and emergingtechnologies, and communicate the networks’ con-cerns with their home agencies. In this sense thesevision keepers promote the information and accessto expertise/information within their agencies andhelp carry the work of the network. Each networkneeds a reasonable number (three to six) of thesepersons representing a range of different agencies,

A Guide to Network Participationand Operation

19

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

who in a collaborative are as essential as the cham-pion. Indeed, it would be very hard to be a suc-cessful champion, or even think of a viablenetwork, without the complementary work of thevision keepers.

Broad ParticipationThe vision keepers must work with the championto broaden participation. In nonprofit-organizationparlance, this means identify the stakeholders andbring them in. Networks, too, must find those orga-nizational representatives who have the neededresources—information, expertise, authority,money—to advance the overall cause. One net-work champion said, “We try to mobilize all thepeople in a similar capacity: funders, regulators,educators, and technology experts.” Many networkshave categories of council or board members tosignify broad involvement: federal government,state government, local government, nonprofit, for-profit, and university/college. This type of activityinvolves reaching out and inviting new resourcepersons to an “ever-widening circle.” Once peoplecome to the table, it is important to see that every-one’s issues are put on the table. It keeps and holdspartners, meeting after meeting, year after year.

CommunicationThe network is also promoted by a steady flow of communication. Electronic communication—e-mail, websites, and, to a lesser extent, video conferencing—constitute the channels of non-face-to-face communication. Meeting notices,announcements of relevant events and programs,and newly available technologies are all transmit-ted this way. “They save a lot of telephone tag, andcontact with one can be contact with all.” All thenetworks have websites, which provide an instantintroduction and a contact point for potential par-ticipants. Before the availability of the World WideWeb, it could take weeks to find out about andcontact someone in a network. E-mails link individ-uals so that the work of the network can be trans-mitted, and, between meetings, e-mail is thetransmission belt of technological and/or programinformation.

Electronic means, however, are not substitutes forface-to-face communication, particularly at net-work meetings. Here the network business and

one-to-one interagency business is transmitted,once again avoiding “telephone tag.” Most meet-ings observed informally “convened” 10 or 15 min-utes before the formal meeting and “continued” forup to 45 minutes after the meeting. At the annualRural Institute of one developmental network thatthe author attended, The Partnership for RuralNebraska (PRN), hundreds of informal contactswere made over the two and a half days (see“Partnership for Rural Nebraska: A DevelopmentalNetwork”). These contacts are important since PRNdoes not take direct action beyond its capacity-building activities. Communication promotes net-works by offering participants vital information,new capabilities and opportunities, and contactvenues. They are central to conducting transorgani-zational affairs in all types of networks.

Agency Head RoleNetwork promotion, as other research has revealed,also relies on the tacit support of most partners’agency head. It proves to be hard for anyone in thehierarchy to devote scarce agency resources—time,personnel, information—if the person at the top hasnot bought into the idea of agency presence in anetwork. “Our council is struggling right nowbecause it was the idea of a Republican governortwo governors ago. The previous and currentDemocrats see less of a need for such a body.” As aresult, appointed department heads in this situationwere reported as offering only token support. Onthe other hand, another network coordinator stated,“The only way we have survived political resistancefrom local people is that the state and [special] dis-trict chief executive officers are steadfast in theirsupport of this joint undertaking.” In this case theexecutives are not directly involved, but they havecommitted dollars to support a coordinator andhave made their staff available to become involvedin network activity. Top-level support is essentialpromotional activity.

In effect, network promotion beyond a modestamount of publicity through electronic venues andan occasional brochure and newsletter is primarilyoperational activity. Acts or deeds in developmentand maintenance amount to the major elements ofpromotion. A sort of natural contacting of like-minded agency managers, specialists, and knowl-edge holders over commonly held aims or interestsmoves champions and vision keepers to engage in

20

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

What Is the Partnership for Rural Nebraska?The PRN is really a name applied to a vision:

• A vision of local, state, and federal groups workingtogether to stretch resources, thereby benefitingmore Nebraskans: The whole of the PRN is greaterthan the sum of its parts.

• A vision of educating each other on availableresource and rural development needs, using edu-cational opportunities such as the annual RuralInstitute, agency orientations, and seminars: PRNorganizations learn from each other.

• A vision of communicating to Nebraskans and oth-ers regarding rural development activities, opportu-nities, and challenges through the newsletter, RuralNews Bits. The PRN shares a common voice.

• A vision that is admired outside Nebraska. The PRNis seen as a model for the rest of the country.

As a Result of the Partnership, We Have:The Nebraska Rural Institute. Held every year inSeptember, the Rural Institute has become the preemi-nent conference of its kind in Nebraska. Focusedentirely on rural development issues, the Institutebrings together providers, practitioners, researchers,and community activists to network, share, discuss,and learn about rural issues, opportunities, challenges,and solutions. Over 750 people have participated inthe Institute since 1998, including people from SouthAfrica and Australia.

The PRN Education Committee. The EducationCommittee is the education arm of the PRN. TheEducation Committee is responsible for the planningand implementation of the Nebraska Rural Institute,cross-training the staff of PRN organizations on eachorganization’s programs, and conducting one- andtwo-day seminars on topics of interest to rural develop-ment practitioners.

Rural News Bits. Over 6,000 persons working on ruraldevelopment in Nebraska receive this monthlynewsletter. Contributing organizations share ideas,educational and financial opportunities, announce-ments, and general news. In a survey conducted lastyear, 76 percent of the survey respondents indicatedthey used the information from Rural News Bits toassist their community, business, or self. Only 15 per-

cent of the respondents indicated that they receive thesame type of information that is available in RuralNews Bits from other sources.

Nebraska Rural Poll. The annual Rural Poll, conductedthrough the University of Nebraska–Lincoln’s Centerfor Applied Rural Innovation, is the most extensive,comprehensive research of its kind anywhere in theworld. Real information on the trends happening inrural Nebraska and the attitudes of the people who livethere is gathered and analyzed, providing an invalu-able snapshot of rural Nebraska that can be consideredand used in policy development. Rural Poll resultshave been cited in the Wall Street Journal, New YorkTimes, and USA Today.

Nebraska Cooperative Development Center. This is anetwork of people with access to local state andnational resources, dedicated to keeping people inrural areas by helping them work together to increasetheir income, and dedicated to helping in the creationof agricultural opportunities by working cooperatively.The NCDC is staffed and funded by three of the PRNagencies.

Shared Staff. Because of the improved communicationsand recognition of common needs, some of the partneragencies have been able to share staff. While oneagency may not have been able to afford a new staffperson to meet a pressing need, by working coopera-tively with another PRN agency, they are able to funda position that meets the demands of two or moreorganizations. Shared staff includes two staff positionswith the Cooperative Development Center and twoshared positions with the Education Committee andRural News Bits. In addition, agency staff workstogether on a variety of projects that aren’t jointlyfunded. This extends and expands capability withoutstressing limited resources.

Communication. Perhaps most important of all is theheightened level of communication and its value to thepartner organizations. The enhanced communicationand the relationships that have been built allow thepartner organizations to eliminate “turf” issues, collab-orate to provide the needed service to rural Nebraska,and focus on the final result: that of providing thehighest level of assistance to the greatest number ofprojects and communities, and stretching tax dollars to the maximum.

The Partnership for Rural Nebraska (PRN): A Developmental Network

Source: http://cari.unl.edu/prn1

21

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

an inclusive involvement that brings in others, andthose who benefit personally/professionally/organi-zationally will participate, and sometimes becomepotential vision keepers. Media advertisements,news releases, newspaper and magazine articles,and other aspects of mass publicity can createsome visibility but are rare forms for network build-ing. Networks’ real promotion is by organizing andoperating.

Brokering Decisions and ResultsOne clear factor about networks is that becausethey are self-organizing and nonhierarchical, theyapproach their form of decision process carefully,whether it be to adopt an agenda or to take someform of action. Why the trepidation over decisions?Several reasons are apparent. First, these bodies arerarely program bodies, but they exist to exchangeinformation and become aware of potential adjust-ments that the network actors can make in theirown organizations.15 Second, most members cometo the table on a voluntary basis (a few report theywere assigned network duty), and the nature oftheir participation suggests some form of sharedparticipation in decisions. Third, network actorscome together from very different organizationalcultures, and the risk of clashing styles is great ifnot managed. Fourth, in most networks, decisioncomes as a result of shared learning experiences inwhich the product is the creative solution thatemanates from the discussion.16 Fifth, decisions thatcreate winners and losers, most zero-sum situations,discourage involvement and contribution. Theseconcerns make clear why so few of the networksmake many hard and fast core policy/programdecisions. It is also clear that consensus is themode of agreement. It almost always prevails overparliamentary voting.

It is important to understand that many networksare not the joint decision bodies they are assumedto be. In all but the action networks, the process of decision is limited to such organizing issues as adopting the annual work plan, approving theagenda for the annual meeting or program for theconference, forming workgroups or committees,reviewing the website, or electing officers. With the exception of Des Moines MPO, where plansand funding priorities are adopted, and ICN andEDARC of accessIndiana, where agency use rates

are approved and communications operations areregulated, the networks operate without the kind of formal work schedules or major project designsthat single organizations are familiar with. Oftenstudies are conducted, as with the two naturalresource networks, after which the partners “hearthe results,” ask questions, and then are free tobring the studies back to their agencies for imple-mentation. Also, with the exception of the trans-portation and natural resource networks, little thatis on the table is really controversial. Decisions arenot core issues for most networks.

Decision ProcessHow are decisions that are made brokered in mostof the networks? Clearly by achieving consensusthrough joint exploration and discussion untilagreement is at hand. Then another issue is broughtto the table. A state official described the processthis way: “Proposals are made by participatingagencies; the staff there researches the proposaland does a market feasibility study; the report isdistributed electronically before the meeting; at themeeting, discussion is held and questions are asked;if there are too many questions we table the issueuntil more research can be undertaken; in between,meetings, phone calls, and one-to-one discussionsensue; the issue is brought back to the table; and if there are a lot of head nods in the yes direction,we consider it to be approved.” A process like this,with lots of brokering, is followed in most of thenetworks, although normally “staff” research tendsto be the partners themselves who go back to theirown programs and work with their agency col-leagues, later bringing the agency-derived results to the network.

One partner described the network decisionprocess as similar to “a rural community meeting.”“You get the people out, connect them, let themidentify the issues, and let them come up with asolution over time.” Another said that beyond set-ting priorities on work, and staff doing some stud-ies, “we let consensus rise to the top.” Anothersaid, “We have Robert’s Rules in our by-laws, butonly use them after we have reached agreement.”Another network chair said that “parliamentaryprocedure rules won’t work—as a last resort whenwe are near consensus we may resort to informalRobert’s Rules to move things along.”

22

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Therefore, agreement must be brokered in someway. The prevailing mode is to use the discussionto identify the barriers posed by the people at thetable and, if possible, acknowledge them by mak-ing accommodations. As mentioned, most of theadministrators at the table have the delegatedauthority to make such adjustments. In other casesan ominous silence by a key partner may signaldisagreement but unwillingness to hold up theemerging consensus. Voiced disagreement, on theother hand, often leads to tabling and protracteddiscussions and e-mails among administratorsbetween network meetings.

In some information networks, consensus is oftenhard to reach. The parties—for example, land-owners and environmentalists—may simply agreethat they disagree. Action is individual. The DesMoines MPO must by law make two types of decisions that are virtually impossible to reach byconsensus, project funding priorities and the metro-politan transportation plan. For the former, theyhave adopted elaborate decision rules that all havebought into by prior agreement, deflecting majorconflict over choosing projects, whereas withregard to the plan, a weighted (by population) voting scheme has been employed, but thesedevices have not always built consensus.

Network PowerThe decision-brokering role also operates withinthe context of network power. Beyond the façadeof consensus and collaborative management,stronger partners may be able to take advantage ofweaker partners. In each of the networks studied,some organization representatives sit in positionswhere their knowledge, financial resources, organi-zation position, or legal authority accrues powerwithin the collective.17 While such power can beused to impede consensus, it is more often used toforge general agreements. For example, in the ruraldevelopment networks—both outreach and devel-opmental—the USDA/RD, university Extension, andstate economic development departments tend tobe powerful and committed actors. Their partnermembers do a great deal of the persuasion and,ultimately, adjustment work required to foster thecommon mission by getting others to make theadjustments needed for essential consensus. On theother hand, the absence of the support of any ofthe “big three” can slow progress in these networks.18

Negotiated SupportBrokering within networks is, as one partner sug-gested, “very much like project management withinour agency, where you try to make adjustments tobuild agreement to move forward.” Workingtogether and discussing reasonable accommoda-tions and proposals needs to carry the support of awide range of organizations. Like project manage-ment, it is a negotiated support.

Developing TrustIt is clear that networks are held together by pur-pose and social capital, plus mutual respect ortrust. Generally held beliefs in the purpose—geo-graphic information system (GIS), rural develop-ment, micro and home-based business, economicdevelopment—of the network contribute to attract-ing and holding people in the collective.19 Socialcapital, or the built-up reservoir of good will thatflows from different organizations working togetherfor mutual productive gain, no doubt is the “glue”that holds people together or the “motivator” thatmoves the process along.20 But in terms of whathelps to steer networks, it is clearly trust, the oblig-ation to be concerned with others’ interests, thatallows for the network to do its work, select itsleaders, keep its members, and, most important, to broker those decisions it must make.

To some degree, many network partners bring pre-existing trust-based relationships with theminto the network. “Some of us have been workingtogether for up to 30 years,” said one naturalresource administrator. The author was repeatedlyreminded that many of the state and federal offi-cials work with one another in multiple settings:interagency funding awards committees, taskforces, councils, and consortia. In this way, famil-iarity breeds subsequent understanding throughprior or other ongoing work.

The process of mutual learning through explorationleads to additional trust. “As we educate one anotherwe take advantage of diverse backgrounds.” Whenparticipants hear technical presentations by col-leagues, or hear about others’ programs, they developmore than a passing level of understanding aboutthem. One learns not only about the other agencyand its programs, but is able to make deeper judg-ments regarding the competence of the agency,

23

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

along with that agency’s potential contribution tothe network’s mission. As participation in the net-work increases over time, individuals demonstratekey technical and managerial abilities, which in turnbuild the collective confidence of the group. Indeed,the more knowledge that is extended, the greaterthe opportunity to build trust in others’ abilities.

Discussants in virtually all networks agreed thatprocedurally the consensus-building process buildstrust. “We give up some autonomy for a new para-digm shift, collaboration. This leads to mutualunderstanding and a passion about partnering.” Asdeliberations ensue, the details and positions areput on the table, and adjustments are made, peoplefeel more comfortable about one another. One fed-eral official stated that a great group dynamicmeans, “Don’t let your power get in the way.” Eachinstance of consensus cements this obligation-based trust.

Another operating rule in most networks is thattrust is maintained by non-encroachment on anyparticipating agency’s domain. One state officialput it bluntly, “Let each agency put their details andconcerns on the table; respect each agency’s needsand interests. They come first!” Most network actorswill tell you it is better to keep agency agendasfrom being hidden, but when agendas do come for-ward, it may be impossible to force an agency tochange. Mild persuasion and minor adjustmentmay follow, but intransigence on the part of anagency, particularly a powerful one, usually meansthat a network must pull away from a controversialissue.

Action Builds TrustThe individual information-sharing dimension ofnetwork activity cements relationships in a verysubtle way. In the Ohio Small CommunitiesEnvironmental Infrastructure Group, a key portionof every meeting is the time allotted for agencies toshare their own outreach experiences and agendas.This unfolds before they tackle joint outreach activ-ities (see “Small Communities EnvironmentalInfrastructure Group: An Outreach Network”). Thisway partners know what the others are undertak-ing; agendas get put on the table. In most of thenetworks, meeting time is usually devoted to an

around-the-table report on the issues of relevancein each agency or program. These “show-and-tell”sessions are important for all members to fulfilltheir liaison role for their organizations, whetherthey are official boundary spanners or not. In theprocess of opening up one’s agency to others, the kind of trust that emanates from openness isadvanced.

The sense of trust can also be built through pro-gressive accomplishment. “Start with somethingsmall and build from there” was a sentimentechoed by a number of discussants. Another sug-gested that starting with low-risk efforts helps. Aseach network carves out the possible, achievementproduces “results” and proves to the group thatthey can work together. Committee work is criticalhere. When small groups of networkers worktogether at a smaller table on focused projects, itleads to a higher level of intimacy, and if all goeswell and the work gets done, it breeds deeperunderstanding. Failure to do committee work, orfailure to deliver a promised information compo-nent, a data set, or some other work necessary fornetwork operation, contributes to loss of trust.Since networks rely on the “volunteer contribution”of mostly full-time administrators, each is expectedto do his/her share and come forth with any com-mitments made to the group.

Extended timeframe conferences or meetings areimportant social platforms upon which trust isextended. The Iowa GIS network has a biannualconference at a university where prepared papersand panel presentations are offered. The IowaEnterprise Network holds periodic conferenceswhere self-help projects are demonstrated, alongwith useful presentations on maintaining smallbusinesses. The Partnership for Rural Nebraska’sannual community economic development RuralInstitute is planned by its component partners; itprovides substantive panel presentations and mobileworkshops. The Indiana Rural Development Councilholds a one-day annual conference, and in 2002hosted the two-day National Rural DevelopmentCouncil Partnership workshops. These meetingsbring the key actors together in planning the ses-sions, and the sessions, formally and informally,provide the type of social and intellectual bondingthat reinforces pre-existing trust.

24

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Many network participants thus build on the rela-tionship-based trust from numerous prior contacts.The act of working in the network as a team on a“common cause” as information bearers for theiragencies usually leads to greater mutual respect. In the outreach and action networks, there is the opportunity to build trust by “delivering” onimplementation.

Problematic TrustTrust is not guaranteed. The transportation DesMoines MPO has some difficulty getting represen-tatives to think metropolitan rather than for theirown jurisdiction’s interests. Their policy body, com-posed of elected officials and local managers, findsthis particularly difficult. They also suffer from

turnover of local elected official members. Theorganization’s technical committee finds this to beless of a problem, as it is composed of appointedadministrators who have worked together overtime. The informational natural resource net-works—Lower Platte and Darby—also find devel-oping mutual respect among conflicting interestsdifficult. In these cases, trust is harder to develop,though there appears to exist among administrators,and with the others, a level of working familiarity,if not trust. In these cases, where the conflictpotential is greater, the issues addressed mean thatit is more difficult to develop trust. The other net-works, however, rely heavily on their interactiveprocesses to orchestrate mutual obligation.

What is SCEIG?The Small Communities Environment InfrastructureGroup is an association of federal and state agencies,local governments and groups, service organizations,and educational institutions designed to help smallcommunities in meeting their environmental infra-structure needs.

The SCEIG was formed in 1990, by state, federal,local, educational, and service agencies that provideregulatory, technical, financial, and educational assis-tance for environmental infrastructure projects. Theseagencies saw a need to coordinate efforts to assistsmall governments with the difficult task of develop-ing, improving, and maintaining their water andwastewater systems. This group of experts has quar-terly meetings to discuss the needs of small communi-ties and what responses or remedies are appropriateand feasible.

The goal of the group is to assist small communitiesin identifying the most appropriate resources to helpthe communities resolve problems associated withenvironmental infrastructure. To this end, the grouphas established three committees to address the most pressing needs of small communities: FinanceCommittee, Curriculum Committee, and TechnologyCommittee.

A committee on financing was formed to coordinatethe financial resources administered by state and fed-eral agencies to address environmental infrastructureneeds of small communities. The Finance Committeemeets bimonthly to address the needs of specificcommunities if a member agency feels that a projectcannot be funded without a coordinated effort.

The Curriculum Committee offers workshops in whatlocal officials need to know about water and waste-water systems; the training session includes: review of system alternatives, visits to nearby facilities,understanding management requirements, analysis of community needs, and resources available to assistin designing, funding, and operating water supply systems and wastewater treatment facilities.

The committee for technology transfer works togetherto identify and develop new or under-utilized tech-nologies to meet the specific needs of small commu-nities. The Technology Committee prepares manuals,offers workshops, and has developed a resourcelibrary to help engineering consultants and regulatorsfind the right systems for small communities.

In addition, the SCEIG has published various docu-ments and compiled a list of Internet resources for theuse of small communities in considering the installation,repair, or expansion of environmental infrastructure.

Small Communities Environmental Infrastructure Group: An Outreach Network

Source: http://www.cpmra.muohio.edu/sceig/sceig.htm

25

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Enlisting Technical ExpertiseInformation is at the heart of network operations.Since only a small number take direct mutualaction, there would not be much left to do withouta solid information base. Both program and techni-cal information, from different organizations run-ning in the opposite directions of agency autonomyand integrative solution, take the form of a doublehelix, which constitutes the “transactional DNA” ofthese interorganizational exchange relationships.Most of the network management practices alreadyidentified—such as roundtable information sharing,annual/biannual conferences, agency presentationsat full network and committee meetings, web post-ings, and e-mail transmissions—compose the set ofordinary vehicles of finding and transmitting infor-mation. This constant flow of expertise is a part ofthe ongoing operations of networks. As one non-profit administrator related, “A lot of expertiseresides in the people who are in the network.”

Dedicated expertise vehicles also play a prominentrole in many of the networks studied. The DesMoines MPO has a technical advisory committeethat both looks at feasibility of contemplated proj-ects and finds and brings state-of-the-art planningand transportation technology to the MPO. Thecommittee’s technical conclusions and adviceprove to be essential for making the kind of joint-action decisions the MPO is required to make (see “Des Moines Area Metropolitan PlanningOrganization: An Action Network”).

The Small Cities Environmental InfrastructureGroup in Ohio has a Technology TransferCommittee, composed mostly of consulting engi-neers, who bring advice and information to smallcities as an alternative technical source to paidconsultants. The committee maintains a technologylibrary, and also serves to educate the other groupmembers. The Iowa GIS group (IGIC) has severaltechnical committees, for example, the GlobalPositioning Committee. Network actors sometimescall on network staff or agency staff to provideexpertise. IGIC has a state GIS coordinator whoworks for Iowa State Extension, spending part of histime in GIS training and development at the countygovernment level. accessIndiana’s EDARC reliesalmost completely on contract-based technical andmarketing staff. The Indiana Economic DevelopmentCouncil, a strategic planning group composed of

high-level public and private sector executives andelected officials, relies almost completely on pro-ject staff, or the staff of the Indiana Department of Commerce, to conduct its research and provideneeded information.

Finally, many of the networks dedicate up to half of their meetings to technical presentations. Thesepresentations are reported to be invaluable in keep-ing and holding partner members, who becomemore comfortable if they attend a two- to four-hourmeeting in which more than housekeeping busi-ness items are discussed. These presentations aremade by network participant experts, universityresearchers and professors, or external vendors.

Finding ExpertiseInternal and external expertise is a mainstreamsource of technical knowledge. Most participantswill ask staff scientists or specialists, along withuniversity-based researchers, to share their technol-ogy knowledge with the body. For example, in theenvironmental and natural resource networks, engi-neering knowledge that deals with flooding andfloodplain concerns, water supply, water quality,agricultural use, and recreation and wildlife man-agement are all at the forefront of participatingagency needs. Researchers and vendors haveknowledge that may not be within the network. Agood example of external knowledge in environ-mental management would be in various facets ofprecision agriculture. As a result, external expertsare called in, usually with some “coaching.” As onefederal official observed, “The university researchpeople usually need to be reminded that the audi-ence is most interested in the practical applica-tions, and how feasible and cost-effective it is. Thevendors need to be reminded that they are not hereto sell us a product, but to make us aware of atechnology so we can explain it to the communi-ties we work with.” Individual agency partners thencan access these external presenters if they chooseto do so.

Informal Expertise DevelopmentThe Iowa Communication Network accesses infor-mation differently through its informal networkingprocesses. It is a different kind of action network,its physical network being the nearly 4,000 miles offiber-optic cable that has been laid, and it is a

26

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

statutory agency governed by a state commission.At the first level, expertise is exchanged through aset of advisory committees and councils: Education,Regional Telecommunications, Telemedicine (alsostatutory), Administrative Telecommunications,Telecommunications, Telejustice, and LibraryNetwork. At another level there are the interactionsof the policy and operational people, such as thedirector of education for Iowa Public Television, theIowa Department of Public Health chief informa-tion officer, the Iowa Department of Transportationinformation officer, the operations director for the Public Safety Department, the associate dean/

telecommunications director of the University of Iowa School of Medicine/Hospitals, and ICNmanagement staff and division heads. Technicalexpertise, however, is transmitted informally as ICN operating staff (some of whom are contractemployees) interact with the information executivespreviously mentioned and their immediate staff. As needs are exchanged and programs adjusted,valuable telecom expertise is accessed andexchanged. Technical knowledge is enhanced bytransactional contacts between service providerand client through this informal networking.

The Des Moines Area MPO is responsible for trans-portation planning within a geographic area calledthe Planning Area. The MPO approved the PlanningArea on May 21, 1992. It is nearly double the areathat was used for previous transportation plans in theDes Moines area. It is the same area used to developthe MPO’s HY 2020 Transportation DevelopmentReport, published and adopted by the MPO inOctober 1994. It is the same area used to developthis plan, The Horizon Year 2025 Long-RangeTransportation Plan (Plan). The Planning Area includesportions of Dallas, Madison, Polk, and WarrenCounties. The Planning Area is intended to includethe area that is expected to be developed or urban-ized by the year 2025.

MPO membership is open to any county or city gov-ernment located in the Planning Area having at least2,400 population and that adopts the MPO’s 28EAgreement (agreement entered into under Chapter28E, Code of Iowa, establishing the MPO and itsresponsibilities). Currently, MPO membershipincludes the following cities and counties: Altoona,Ankeny, Carlisle, Clive, Dallas County, Des Moines,Grimes, Johnston, Norwalk, Pleasant Hill, PolkCounty, Urbandale, Warren County, Waukee, WestDes Moines, and Windsor Heights. The city of PolkCity is an associate MPO member. Associate member-ship allows a nonvoting representative to actively participate in the transportation planning process.Associate membership is available to governmentswithin the MPO that do not meet the populationthreshold for full membership.

Representation on the MPO (the Transportation PolicyCommittee) is based on population, with each mem-ber government given at least one vote. The MPOgives additional representatives to larger member gov-ernments based on reaching determined populationthresholds. The Iowa Department of Transportation(DOT), the Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority(MTA), the Des Moines International Airport (Airport),the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) serve as non-voting, advisory representatives to the MPO.

The MPO receives technical guidance and recom-mendations from the MPO’s Transportation TechnicalCommittee (Tech Committee). The Tech Committeerepresentation differs from the MPO in that the MTAand Airport are voting members of this committee.The MPO Tech Committee’s representatives, primarilysenior staff from the MPO’s member governments andagencies, are appointed by their respective councilsor boards.

Additionally, the MPO has established and supportsother committees on various transportation-relatedissues relevant to the MPO’s responsibilities. TheMPO also requests citizens to serve on these commit-tees, as appropriate. As part of an adopted public par-ticipation process, the MPO strongly encouragesinput by and communication from citizens.

Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): An Action Network

Source: Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Horizon Year 2025: Long-Range Transportation Plan(Urbandale, IA: DMMPO, 1999).

27

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

The other networks come together formally toaccess expertise and to share information. Holdingmany partners in the fold in most networks requiresthat technical knowledge be transmitted; they willnot attend repeatedly unless there is something togain beyond the usual collaboration slogans of whois doing what and can we work together. As onefederal official related, “We try to find out who isriding the appropriate technology horse and get itout in a viable form.”

28

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

The network managers were asked, at the end ofeach discussion, for observations and suggestionsto other public managers about how to manage innetworks as opposed to managing within singleadministrative organizations. It provided them anopportunity to reflect on the network experience ina broad way and, most important, to contrast thetwo types of management, in hierarchies versusnetworks. Very few managers were reluctant tospeak, reflect, and provide advice.

1. Be a representative of youragency and the network.To be an effective network participant, one mustbalance the dualism of agency and collective con-cerns. As a formal or informal boundary spanner,one must first of all know your own agency, its pro-grams, administrators, technologies, funding bases,regulations, and so on. “Others in the network willturn to you with questions and expect answers.”This requires a constant flow of communicationwithin the home agency. In this sense the boundaryspanning activity extends to intraorganizational aswell as interorganizational domains. “Do the lateralnetworking within your agency,” said one state liai-son officer. If expertise is called for that you cannotsupply, bring the right person from the organizationto the meeting. “It is your responsibility (as agencyrepresentative) to see that the right need for techni-cal information from your agency is satisfied.”

“Continuous involvement, no matter what thetrade-offs might be, is also essential.” “Always bethere! No one will protect your interests but you.”

Several persons relayed that they don’t want to missthe information that is exchanged around the table.One federal manager concluded that networkinvolvement is a necessary evil. “It takes great timecommitments, I would call it ‘drudge’ work; youhave to make yourself network when there is somuch on your desk, and go to night meetings; it ishard to keep the momentum going, so we all haveto do our part.”

At the same time, one must be concerned for theoverall mission or purpose of the network. “We’renot here just for departmental ‘show-and-tell,’ butto investigate and solve problems that touch all ofus.” Those at the table are, as mentioned, expectedto contribute information or expertise or resources.And when the problem being faced is nettlesome,solutions require that most all administrators helpfocus on the issue at hand and contribute. That is amajor reason why the network is demanding ofmanagers’ time. One must think in terms of thewhole enterprise as well as represent one’s agency.

2. Take a share of the administrativeburden.Most of the active and long-standing networkseither have a small coordinating staff, or the main-tenance work is conducted by a staff person as asmall part of his or her regular duties. Only half ofthe agencies have any kind of full-time staff. Theother half relies on a small portion of one person’sduties, which were devoted to network maintenance/continuity. As a result, many individuals in the net-work may have to take on all or some of the neces-

Ten Lessons on How to Manage in Networks

29

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

sary support chores. The point is to “have someoneto do the staff work.”

A great deal of the administrative load is carried byold-fashioned volunteering or stepping up. This isusually the case with regard to committee or task-force chairpersons. When a network memberagrees to become a chair there is a tacit under-standing that this person will arrange meetings,keep records of proceedings, oversee necessaryinvestigations, contact outside experts, and reportat network plenary meetings. The network itselfalso makes designations of persons responsible forgathering information or making contacts. Thisdesignee is expected to absorb any necessaryresearch assistance and e-mail or clerical resourceswithin the home agency, and to personally performthe leadership aspects. The task leadership functionis not expected to be delegated to an assistant ordeputy, unless that person is or is about to becomea working member of the network. In a network,many managers are expected to become workers in terms of critical committee or assignment work.

An active president/chair or coordinator is alsoessential. “Our good years have been those with acommitted, active chairperson; the bad years when[the network] was low on the chair’s agenda, orsomething came along to overwhelm or distracthim.” An active chair plus a champion is a realadministrative advantage, as the champion can fillin the gaps with a less active chair and urge activechairs to greater heights.

3. Operate by agenda orchestration.Networks that just let the discussion roll and hopefor the best do not do as well as those who “man-age the interaction time.” The advice of the discus-sants, in their words, goes something like this:“Learn the players,” “get people to work acrosstheir silos,” “keep the formal and the informalgoing,” “don’t step on agency toes,” “keep politicsout of the core issue,” and “always steer toward thevision.”

This is why the work plan and a focused agendaare important in virtually all of the networks. Anannual work plan focuses on mission-driven goalsthat can be accomplished within a timeframe. Theplan is not only a statement of the quality and the

quantity of the work, but an important message thatthe network is not a social gathering of like-mindedmanagers, but a serious collaborative body that hasconcrete reasons for existence and can accomplishtangible results. The agenda is a signal to partnermanagers that meetings are devoted to objectivesfor which their participation is required. One net-work champion flatly asserted, “Without a workplan and real issues on the agenda, we wouldslowly lose program directors, or they would beginto send staff members, and then expendableemployees. Then it [the network] is over!”

In other words, the interaction must not only be ledbut oriented to purpose, guided to some tangiblelevel of accomplishment, while respecting partnerinterests and positions. In networks, one would callthis the essential part of the guidance function.

4. Recognize shared expertise-basedauthority.One discussant reminds herself “that every time Ienter the world of the network I change hats fromthe boss to one member.” Another state agencyhead concluded that every clergyperson—rabbi,minister, priest—could learn from his networkexperience. “They should all be required to not be

The Ten Lessons

1. Be a representative of your agency and thenetwork.

2. Take a share of the administrative burden.

3. Operate by agenda orchestration.

4. Recognize shared expertise-based authority.

5. Stay within the decision bounds of your network.

6. Accommodate and adjust while maintainingpurpose.

7. Be as creative as possible.

8. Be patient and use interpersonal skills.

9. Recruit constantly.

10. Emphasize incentives.

30

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

the person in charge for at least a year before theytake the pulpit. They would learn to work with peo-ple at different levels, formally and informally. Thismeans that as one works though the network, dif-ferent aspirations, goals, and missions must cometogether.” Another administrator said, “You can’toperate in this collective if you think you have allthe answers. We come together to find answers.That makes us more equal. We all have expertise indifferent ways.” Another administrator concluded,“It is not a matter of no one being in charge, butthat everyone is in charge … and that is how youhave to operate.” One middle manager related howimportant implicit authority among his peers in thenetwork is, particularly in subcommittees: “We justdo without our agency head’s support. At the toplevel they have to be protective of their turf. It iseasier for us to take certain actions.” Finally, onefull-time network coordinator underscored not onlythe presence of collective authority, but the lowauthority profile that networks often have to take inthis regard: “We are most useful when no one isscared of us.”

5. Stay within the decision boundsof your network.If your network is designed to inform others or tobuild capacity so individual agencies can makebetter decisions, don’t tread on agency decisionprerogatives, or you will not be a network for long.The three information networks studied report theyare constantly watched so that they do not crossthat line to decision/action/implementation. Severaldiscussants in one of these networks observed thatthe network was particularly threatened in 1999when one of its core partners unilaterally came outin support of a national wildlife refuge proposal forthe watershed. “The wildlife refuge issue almostblew us apart. People thought [the network] was infavor of it, and we lost a lot of public and agencysupport. Some people dropped out for two yearsand, now that the issue is dead, they are just com-ing back.”

Developmental networks can decide on programsthat help partner agencies, but they must stop shortof deciding on courses of action that their agenciesmight take. “We demonstrate lots of different busi-ness development strategies and hope the confer-ence participant will go home and use them!”

Outreach networks stop short of hard decisions, butprovide opportunities to access agency programsand no more. “We can’t do programming as a net-work. Only the programs themselves are autho-rized by law to provide funding or some type ofservices!” On the other hand, action networks mustfulfill their charge by delivering services, fundingprograms, making legal plans, and so on. It is thusimportant to know that all types of networks decideon work plans, agendas, officers, committees, andinformation programs, but not all make the kind ofoperational decisions that are familiar to agenciesand organizations.

6. Accommodate and adjust whilemaintaining purpose.The earlier discussion of the brokering role suggeststhe importance of moving beyond the recognitionof individual concerns toward new ideas and formsof collaborative agreement. This requires recogni-tion of the “long lead time that is needed foradjustment and reaching consensus.” This comes,according to a state department head, “after anopen and frank discussion on the big issues.” “Thismeans to be ready for give-and-take while remind-ing all of our vision,” said another manager. Anotherprogram manager echoed this sentiment, “Talk itout, back off a bit from the agenda to get agree-ment, but stay within your bounds. Remember whatyou are there for.” The individual member of thenetwork is there to use agency knowledge/expertise/resources to help explore problems and developcreative solutions while being concerned for theinterests of the home agency. This is not an easyundertaking. One substate official suggested that“informed discussion helps, but there is still a lot ofwork to get everybody on board.” Many informantsdescribed the process as, in effect, protracted.

7. Be as creative as possible.Because networks rely so heavily on shared infor-mation, a lot gets put on the table. Then the partici-pants must go further and turn the pooledinformation into a new, group-based direction thatis based in joint-learning experiences. One stateprogram head reminded other managers to “thinkoutside the box, because the whole must be some-thing different than the sum of its parts.” Anotherfederal government state program director said that

31

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

as a group, network actors must “get outside oftheir normal comfort zone.” One thing that helpsthis process along is to focus on who ultimately isbeing served and what results will help them. “Wetry to focus on clients,” said one state administrator.Another state official said, “If we forget about whywe are here and who we are serving, we will slideinto the same ruts. If we keep our focus on the pur-pose, we can extend our ability to experiment andutilize innovative technology.” Finally, a formerExtension worker concluded that the network hewas involved in almost died because it “failed totake into account how all of the interests, all of theideas, and all of the institutions could lead to solu-tions that all persons with a stake could live with.”

8. Be patient and use interpersonalskills.A university professor who was present at thefounding of two networks said that he learned to“be incredibly patient; if you push you lose. Youmust adopt the style of ‘wait for the teachablemoment.’” Others similarly referred to the “longlearning curve” required, as well as the strategy of“slow introduction, and wait for support later,” aswell as the need for “good listening skills becauseeverybody’s view is valued to some extent.” Manydiscussants suggested that the same type of team-building skills that are necessary within agenciesare valued, except that there is an extra burden ongetting every person’s involvement and agreement.It is a slower team process, because there is no ulti-mate authority, and the team management processevolves at the same time the content does. Finally,the ability to communicate openly is identified asan essential skill: “You have to talk it through andsee that someone is responsible for institutionalmemory.” In a sense, managers appear to bringsimilar skill sets to networks as they do for singleorganizations. In the absence of legal authority,however, they are applied with greater degrees of difficulty.

9. Recruit constantly.As the scope of knowledge increases, and prob-lems become more complex and interactive, thequest for information broadens. For networks thismeans a continuing effort at expanding the involve-ment base. “Touch as many bases as you can, get

as many sectors as are important involved, andwelcome them,” said one federal administrator.Another state official said, “Get the top decisionmakers, the managers who do the work, and thetechnical people involved … but don’t let the‘techies’ get control.” If there are key stakeholderswho are potential opponents or impediments tosolutions, “engage them early … don’t wait forthem to attack you from outside the tent.” Involvingsome opponents means meeting them on theirground, as the natural resource network managersconcluded. “We started having evening meetings inthe communities, and new positions and opposi-tion came out in numbers. Now we know howhard it is going to be, and how hard it is to keepthem participating.” In these situations, networkshave no choice if they wish to inform and educate.Networks are inclusive. Exclusivity or limitedinvolvement leads to information and support gaps,as well as lost potential in interagency adjustmentas well as potential resources.

10. Emphasize incentives.Most informants agreed that the two greatest incen-tives to participate are the opportunity to worktoward solutions that are important to them andtheir agencies, and the possibilities of information/knowledge expansion. Thus “keeping the informa-tion flowing,” said one state program head, is“what I expect to give and to get.” Another said,“The rewards are intrinsic but great. I learn how tokeep rural Nebraska communities, and I help com-munities by my involvement.” Another federal ruraldevelopment administrator said, “Outreach is partof our agency’s mission. All of our different ruralbodies help us do this. The same people who are atthe meetings are the ones we contact in the field.The meetings help keep the process going.” It isalso important to let people in the broad programarena that a network operates in know about yourexistence. “Let people know who you are.” Atsome point awareness may lead to critical partici-pation. Information or the potential to receive it,plus shared purpose, can at some point be theincentive that brings in other agencies or organiza-tions to the network.

32

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Finding networks that can become objects of studyis not as easy as looking at a government organiza-tion directory and choosing agencies whose mis-sions equal one’s scope of a study. Locating theminvolves following leads from federal, state, andlocal government managers, and listening carefullywhen networks are mentioned in the course ofother research, or remembering those that surfacedduring the hunt for “real life” teaching examples.The initial search for this project led to about threedozen possibilities. Their website home pages werevisited to see if they really qualify as networks. Thatreduced the number to around 20. E-mail contactswere made with a potential principal contact andan abstract of the study included. That was fol-lowed by phone calls to answer questions and torequest permission to enter into the “space” of thenetwork, and to seek assistance for names of poten-tial informants. If the answer was in the affirmativeand if the body was a true network, documentationfrom the network’s website and through mailingswas gathered. After the initial document examina-tion, the networks to be studied were selected.

The study itself encompasses a groundedtheory/field study that includes observation andlimited participation, guided discussions with prin-cipal network actors, and document analysis. Thelatter included extensive review of each network’sannual reports, strategic plans, action plans, majorstudies, legislation and executive orders, meetingminutes, conference programs, and other publishedsources. For each network the discussions wereconducted on-site in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and

Nebraska. Site visits were scheduled in severalcases to coincide with observation at regular net-work meetings and, in two cases, attendance at anannual conference. Rather than interviews, guideddiscussions were employed, where discussantswere asked to respond to a standardized set ofquestions, but in a conversational form. All discus-sants received an e-mail copy of the study abstractin advance.

One hundred discussions were held with networkstaff coordinators and/or chairpersons/presidents,along with federal and state agency managers andprogram heads, and in most cases network activistsfrom substate and local governments, nongovern-mental organizations and university researchersand program specialists. Because the study focuseson management issues, priority was placed on pub-lic managers, particularly those who work both inlarge bureaucratic organizations and in networks. Amixture of agency heads or state directors, programmanagers, program specialists, and agency liaisonpersons or “boundary spanners” was included. Thisinevitably led to a weighted or purposive samplethat included larger numbers of federal and stateofficials who were managers, along with networkchairs and coordinators. The topic under studyseemed to justify this approach, because the focusis not on the structure and operations of the net-works themselves, but on how managers fromagencies might manage differently in networks. Asa result, some very important network contributorsno doubt were missed. Their slighting was totally afunction of topic.

Appendix: Research Method

33

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

The use of mixed methods allowed for a richer anddeeper understanding of a murky arena, part of that20 percent of public managers’ time that is spentcrossing organizational lines to do their jobs.Discussants had a chance to reflect on the presub-mitted study abstract and to answer in their ownwords. Face-to-face allowed the researcher to readmore stimuli, i.e., nonverbal expressions, and to getinstant clarification of any point made. Also, addi-tional but valuable information not on the discus-sion guide was usually added, including politicaland administrative tactics that would never beoffered in a questionnaire response. Often theinformation was sufficiently sensitive to “drop thepen.” The discussions were also the time to find outwho really “carried” the network by their knowl-edge and efforts, and if unequal power is a relevantfactor within the network, it was likely to come outduring some discussions.

Meanwhile, the scientific documentation and infor-mation produced by the networks allowed for aclearer understanding about how research andtechnology are interlinked with interagency possi-bilities and, ultimately, action. Indeed, it allowedfor an understanding of how information is asessential as interaction. Finally, the observationopportunities, while uneven, helped not only tounderstand relationships between the formal andinformal, but also to see how networkers both giveand receive valuable information and knowledge. It also provided a level of personal contact withmany actors beyond the scheduled discussion in a considerably more informal and personal way.Together, the three types of data gathering allow fora more holistic picture of these semi-amorphousnetworks.

34

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

1. Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire,Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies forLocal Governments (Washington, D.C.: GeorgetownUniversity Press, 2003).

2. Julia M. Wondolleck and Steven L. Jaffee,Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation inNatural Resource Management (Washington, D.C.: IslandPress, 2000); Thomas W. Church and Robert T.Nakamura, Cleaning Up The Mess: ImplementationStrategies in Superfund (Washington, D.C.: BrookingsInstitution, 1993); Denise Scheberle, Federalism andEnvironmental Policy: Trust and the Politics ofImplementation (Washington, D.C.: GeorgetownUniversity Press, 1997).

3. Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire, op. cit.;Walter J. M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M.Koppenjan (eds.), Managing Complex Networks (London:SAGE, 1997); Eugene Bardach, Getting Agencies to WorkTogether: The Practice and Theory of ManagerialCraftsmanship (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution,1998); Michael McGuire, “Managing Networks:Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They DoIt,” Public Administration Review 62(September/October2002), pp. 599-609.

4. Jessica Lipnack and Jeffery Stamps, The Age ofthe Network (New York: John Wiley, 1994); James E.Austin, The Collaboration Challenge (San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2000); David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson,Collaborative Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1994).

5. Lawrence O’Toole, “Treating Networks Seriously:Practical and Research-based Agendas in PublicAdministration,” Public Administration Review57(January/February 1997), p. 46.

6. Clarence Stone, Regime Politics (Lawrence, Kan.:University Press of Kansas, 1989).

7. Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire, “Multi-Network Management: Collaboration and the HollowState in Local Economic Policy,” Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 8(January 1998), pp. 67-91.

8. Michael McGuire, “Collaborative Policy Makingand Administration: The Operational Demands of LocalEconomic Development,” Economic DevelopmentQuarterly 14(2000), pp. 276-291.

9. Beryl Radin, Robert Agranoff, Ann Bowman, G.Gregory Buntz, Steven Ott, Barbara Romzek, and RobertWilson, New Governance for Rural America: CreatingIntergovernmental Partnerships (Lawrence, Kan.:University Press of Kansas, 1996).

10. Susan Clarke and Gary Gaile, The Work of Cities(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998); PeterEisinger, The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State (Madison:University of Wisconsin Press, 1988); R. Scott Fosler,“State Economic Policy: The Emerging Paradigm,”Economic Development Quarterly 6(2)(1992), pp. 3-13.

11. D. John, Civic Environmentalism (Washington,D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1993).

12. Peter Drucker, “The Next Society,” Economist(November 3, 2001), AQ3, p. 16.

13. David Korten, Getting to the 21st Century:Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda (West Hartford,Conn.: Kumarian Press, 1999).

14. Catherine Alter and Gerald Hage, OrganizationsWorking Together (Beverly Hills, Calif. SAGE, 1993).

15. Ibid.16. Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire, “Big

Questions in Public Network Management Research,”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory11(3)(2001), pp. 295-326.

17. Ibid.18. Radin et al.19. Myrna Mandell, “Community Collaborations:

Working Through Network Structures,” Policy StudiesReview 16(January 1999), pp. 42-64.

20. Jane E. Fountain, “Social Capital: Its Relationshipto Innovation in Science and Technology,” Science andPublic Policy 25(1998), pp. 103-115.

Endnotes

35

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

Robert Agranoff is Professor Emeritus in the School of Public andEnvironmental Affairs, Indiana University–Bloomington, where he remainsas part of the Policy and Administration and the Urban and Regional facultygroups. Prior to his retirement from full-time status, he served as associatedean for Bloomington, director of Public Affairs/Public Policy DoctoralPrograms, and chairperson, Policy and Administration Faculty (1980–2001).Since 1990, he has been affiliated with the Government and PublicAdministration Program of the Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset inMadrid, Spain.

Professor Agranoff’s work focuses on public and intergovernmental man-agement and federalism. His most recent co-authored (with MichaelMcGuire) book is Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies forLocal Government (Georgetown University Press: April 2003). Previousbooks authored/coauthored include: Dimensions of Human Services Integration, IntergovernmentalManagement: Human Services Problem Solving in Six Metropolitan Areas, and New Governance for RuralAmerica: Creating Intergovernmental Partnerships. He has contributed to many journals, including PublicAdministration Review, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Publius: The Journal ofFederalism, International Political Science Review, and Federal and Regional Studies.

Although Agranoff holds emeritus status, he remains active in research and professional service, and in his school’s doctoral programs. He is currently an associate editor of the Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory and chairperson of the Research Committee on Comparative Federalism of theInternational Political Science Association.

Agranoff graduated from the University of Wisconsin–River Falls in 1962, and from the University ofPittsburgh with an M.A. in 1963 and a Ph.D. in 1967, all in political science.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

36

LEVERAGING NETWORKS

To contact the author:

Robert AgranoffProfessor EmeritusSchool of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University–BloomingtonSPEA 3591315 E. Tenth StreetBloomington, IN 47405-1701(812) 855-0731fax: (812) 855-7802

e-mail: Agranoff@Indiana.edu

K E Y C O N T A C T I N F O R M A T I O N

37To download or order a copy of a grant or special report, visit the Endowment website at: www.businessofgovernment.org

GRANT REPORTS

E-Government

Supercharging the EmploymentAgency: An Investigation of the Use of Information and CommunicationTechnology to Improve the Service of State Employment Agencies(December 2000)

Anthony M. Townsend

Assessing a State’s Readiness forGlobal Electronic Commerce:Lessons from the Ohio Experience(January 2001)

J. Pari SabetySteven I. Gordon

Privacy Strategies for ElectronicGovernment (January 2001)

Janine S. HillerFrance Bélanger

Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-CommerceApplications in the Public Sector(February 2001)

Genie N. L. Stowers

The Use of the Internet inGovernment Service Delivery(February 2001)

Steven CohenWilliam Eimicke

State Web Portals: Delivering andFinancing E-Service (January 2002)

Diana Burley GantJon P. GantCraig L. Johnson

Internet Voting: Bringing Elections to the Desktop (February 2002)

Robert S. Done

Leveraging Technology in theService of Diplomacy: Innovation in the Department of State (March 2002)

Barry Fulton

Federal Intranet Work Sites: AnInterim Assessment (June 2002)

Julianne G. MahlerPriscilla M. Regan

The State of Federal Websites: ThePursuit of Excellence (August 2002)

Genie N. L. Stowers

State Government E-Procurement inthe Information Age: Issues, Practices,and Trends (September 2002)

M. Jae Moon

Preparing for Wireless and MobileTechnologies in Government(October 2002)

Ai-Mei ChangP. K. Kannan

Public-Sector Information Security: A Call to Action for Public-SectorCIOs (October 2002, 2nd ed.)

Don Heiman

The Auction Model: How the PublicSector Can Leverage the Power of E-Commerce Through DynamicPricing (November 2002, 2nd ed.)

David C. Wyld

The Promise of E-Learning in Africa:The Potential for Public-PrivatePartnerships (January 2003)

Norman LaRocqueMichael Latham

Digitally Integrating theGovernment Supply Chain:E-Procurement, E-Finance, and E-Logistics (February 2003)

Jacques S. GanslerWilliam Lucyshyn Kimberly M. Ross

Financia lManagement

Credit Scoring and Loan Scoring:Tools for Improved Management ofFederal Credit Programs (July 1999)

Thomas H. Stanton

Using Activity-Based Costing to Manage More Effectively(January 2000)

Michael H. GranofDavid E. PlattIgor Vaysman

Audited Financial Statements:Getting and Sustaining “Clean”Opinions (July 2001)

Douglas A. Brook

An Introduction to Financial RiskManagement in Government (August 2001)

Richard J. Buttimer, Jr.

Human Capita l

Profiles in Excellence: Conversationswith the Best of America’s CareerExecutive Service (November 1999)

Mark W. Huddleston

Reflections on Mobility: CaseStudies of Six Federal Executives(May 2000)

Michael D. Serlin

Managing Telecommuting in theFederal Government: An InterimReport (June 2000)

Gina VegaLouis Brennan

Using Virtual Teams to ManageComplex Projects: A Case Study of the Radioactive Waste ManagementProject (August 2000)

Samuel M. DeMarie

A Learning-Based Approach toLeading Change (December 2000)

Barry Sugarman

Labor-Management Partnerships:A New Approach to CollaborativeManagement (July 2001)

Barry RubinRichard Rubin

Winning the Best and Brightest:Increasing the Attraction of PublicService (July 2001)

Carol Chetkovich

Organizations Growing Leaders:Best Practices and Principles in thePublic Service (December 2001)

Ray Blunt

ENDOWMENT REPORTS AVAILABLE

38 To download or order a copy of a grant or special report, visit the Endowment website at: www.businessofgovernment.org

A Weapon in the War for Talent:Using Special Authorities to RecruitCrucial Personnel (December 2001)

Hal G. Rainey

A Changing Workforce:Understanding Diversity Programsin the Federal Government(December 2001)

Katherine C. NaffJ. Edward Kellough

Life after Civil Service Reform: The Texas, Georgia, and FloridaExperiences (October 2002)

Jonathan Walters

Leaders Growing Leaders:Preparing the Next Generation of Public Service Executives(November 2002, 3rd ed.)

Ray Blunt

The Defense Leadership andManagement Program: Taking Career Development Seriously(December 2002)

Joseph A. FerraraMark C. Rom

The Influence of OrganizationalCommitment on Officer Retention:A 12-Year Study of U.S. ArmyOfficers (December 2002)

Stephanie C. PayneAnn H. HuffmanTrueman R. Tremble, Jr.

Human Capital Reform:21st Century Requirements for the United States Agency forInternational Development(March 2003)

Anthony C. E. QuaintonAmanda M. Fulmer

Managing for Resul ts

Corporate Strategic Planning in Government: Lessons from the United States Air Force(November 2000)

Colin Campbell

Using Evaluation to SupportPerformance Management:A Guide for Federal Executives(January 2001)

Kathryn NewcomerMary Ann Scheirer

Managing for Outcomes:Milestone Contracting in Oklahoma (January 2001)

Peter Frumkin

The Challenge of Developing Cross-Agency Measures: A Case Study ofthe Office of National Drug ControlPolicy (August 2001)

Patrick J. MurphyJohn Carnevale

The Potential of the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act as a Tool to Manage Third-PartyGovernment (August 2001)

David G. Frederickson

Using Performance Data forAccountability: The New York CityPolice Department’s CompStatModel of Police Management(August 2001)

Paul E. O’Connell

Moving Toward More CapableGovernment: A Guide toOrganizational Design (June 2002)

Thomas H. Stanton

Performance Management: A “StartWhere You Are, Use What YouHave” Guide (October 2002)

Chris Wye

New Ways to ManageInnovat ion

Managing Workfare: The Case of the Work Experience Program in the New York City Parks Department(June 1999)

Steven Cohen

New Tools for ImprovingGovernment Regulation: AnAssessment of Emissions Trading and Other Market-Based RegulatoryTools (October 1999)

Gary C. Bryner

Religious Organizations, Anti-Poverty Relief, and CharitableChoice: A Feasibility Study of Faith-Based Welfare Reform inMississippi (November 1999)

John P. BartkowskiHelen A. Regis

Business Improvement Districts and Innovative Service Delivery(November 1999)

Jerry Mitchell

An Assessment of BrownfieldRedevelopment Policies: The Michigan Experience(November 1999)

Richard C. Hula

San Diego County’s InnovationProgram: Using Competition and aWhole Lot More to Improve PublicServices (January 2000)

William B. Eimicke

Innovation in the Administration of Public Airports (March 2000)

Scott E. Tarry

Entrepreneurial Government:Bureaucrats as Businesspeople (May 2000)

Anne Laurent

Rethinking U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Policy: ManagementChallenges for a NewAdministration (November 2000)

Dennis A. Rondinelli

The Challenge of Innovating inGovernment (February 2001)

Sandford Borins

Understanding Innovation:What Inspires It? What Makes ItSuccessful? (December 2001)

Jonathan Walters

Government Management ofInformation Mega-Technology:Lessons from the Internal RevenueService’s Tax Systems Modernization(March 2002)

Barry Bozeman

Procurement

Determining a Level Playing Field for Public-Private Competition(November 1999)

Lawrence L. Martin

Implementing State Contracts forSocial Services: An Assessment of the Kansas Experience (May 2000)

Jocelyn M. JohnstonBarbara S. Romzek

39To download or order a copy of a grant or special report, visit the Endowment website at: www.businessofgovernment.org

A Vision of the Government as a World-Class Buyer: MajorProcurement Issues for the Coming Decade (January 2002)

Jacques S. Gansler

Contracting for the 21st Century: A Partnership Model (January 2002)

Wendell C. Lawther

Franchise Funds in the FederalGovernment: Ending the Monopoly in Service Provision (February 2002)

John J. Callahan

Making Performance-BasedContracting Perform: What theFederal Government Can Learn from State and Local Governments(November 2002, 2nd ed.)

Lawrence L. Martin

Moving to Public-PrivatePartnerships: Learning fromExperience around the World(February 2003)

Trefor P. Williams

IT Outsourcing: A Primer for PublicManagers (February 2003)

Yu-Che ChenJames Perry

The Procurement Partnership Model:Moving to a Team-Based Approach (February 2003)

Kathryn G. Denhardt

Public-Private StrategicPartnerships: The U.S. PostalService-Federal Express Alliance(March 2003)

Oded Shenkar

Networks , Col laborat ion,and Partnerships

Leveraging Networks to MeetNational Goals: FEMA and the Safe Construction Networks (March 2002)

William L. Waugh, Jr.

21st-Century Government and theChallenge of Homeland Defense (June 2002)

Elaine C. Kamarck

Assessing Partnerships: New Formsof Collaboration (March 2003)

Robert KlitgaardGregory F. Treverton

Leveraging Networks: A Guide forPublic Managers Working acrossOrganizations (March 2003)

Robert Agranoff

Extraordinary Results on NationalGoals: Networks and Partnerships inthe Bureau of Primary Health Care’s100%/0 Campaign (March 2003)

John Scanlon

TransformingOrganizat ions

The Importance of Leadership:The Role of School Principals(September 1999)

Paul TeskeMark Schneider

Leadership for Change: Case Studies in American LocalGovernment (September 1999)

Robert B. DenhardtJanet Vinzant Denhardt

Managing DecentralizedDepartments: The Case of the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services (October 1999)

Beryl A. Radin

Transforming Government: TheRenewal and Revitalization of theFederal Emergency ManagementAgency (April 2000)

R. Steven DanielsCarolyn L. Clark-Daniels

Transforming Government: Creatingthe New Defense ProcurementSystem (April 2000)

Kimberly A. Harokopus

Trans-Atlantic Experiences in HealthReform: The United Kingdom’sNational Health Service and theUnited States Veterans HealthAdministration (May 2000)

Marilyn A. DeLuca

Transforming Government: TheRevitalization of the Veterans Health Administration (June 2000)

Gary J. Young

The Challenge of Managing AcrossBoundaries: The Case of the Officeof the Secretary in the U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices (November 2000)

Beryl A. Radin

Creating a Culture of Innovation:10 Lessons from America’s Best RunCity (January 2001)

Janet Vinzant DenhardtRobert B. Denhardt

Transforming Government:Dan Goldin and the Remaking of NASA (March 2001)

W. Henry Lambright

Managing Across Boundaries: ACase Study of Dr. Helene Gayle andthe AIDS Epidemic (January 2002)

Norma M. Riccucci

Managing “Big Science”: A Case Study of the Human GenomeProject (March 2002)

W. Henry Lambright

40 To download or order a copy of a grant or special report, visit the Endowment website at: www.businessofgovernment.org

SPECIAL REPORTS

Government in the 21st Century

David M. Walker

Results of the GovernmentLeadership Survey: A 1999 Surveyof Federal Executives (June 1999)

Mark A. AbramsonSteven A. ClyburnElizabeth Mercier

Creating a Government for the 21st Century (March 2000)

Stephen Goldsmith

The President’s ManagementCouncil: An Important ManagementInnovation (December 2000)

Margaret L. Yao

Toward a 21st Century Public Service: Reports from Four Forums(January 2001)

Mark A. Abramson, Editor

Becoming an Effective PoliticalExecutive: 7 Lessons fromExperienced Appointees (January 2001)

Judith E. Michaels

The Changing Role of Government:Implications for Managing in a NewWorld (December 2001)

David Halberstam

BOOKS*

E-Government 2001(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001)

Mark A. Abramson and Grady E. Means, editors

E-Government 2003(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002)

Mark A. Abramson and Therese L. Morin, editors

Human Capital 2002(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002)

Mark A. Abramson andNicole Willenz Gardner, editors

Innovation(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002)

Mark A. Abramson andIan Littman, editors

Leaders(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002)

Mark A. Abramson and Kevin M. Bacon, editors

Managing for Results 2002(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001)

Mark A. Abramson and John Kamensky, editors

Memos to the President:Management Advice from the Nation’s Top PublicAdministrators (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001)

Mark A. Abramson, editor

The Procurement Revolution(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003)

Mark A. Abramson and Roland S. Harris III, editors

Transforming Organizations(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001)

Mark A. Abramson and Paul R. Lawrence, editors

* Available at bookstores, online booksellers, and from the publisher (www.rowmanlittlefield.comor 800-462-6420).

About the EndowmentThrough grants for research, the IBM Endowment for The Business of Government stimulates research andfacilitates discussion on new approaches to improving the effectiveness of government at the federal, state,local, and international levels.

Founded in 1998, the Endowment is one of the ways that IBM seeks to advance knowledge on how to improvepublic sector effectiveness. The IBM Endowment focuses on the future of the operation and management ofthe public sector.

For additional information, contact:Mark A. AbramsonExecutive DirectorIBM Endowment for The Business of Government1616 North Fort Myer DriveArlington, VA 22209(703) 741-1077, fax: (703) 741-1076

e-mail: endowment@businessofgovernment.orgwebsite: www.businessofgovernment.org

About IBM Business Consulting ServicesWith more than 60,000 consultants and professional staff in more than 160 countries globally, IBM BusinessConsulting Services is the world’s largest consulting services organization. IBM Business Consulting Servicesprovides clients with business process and industry expertise, a deep understanding of technology solutionsthat address specific industry issues, and the ability to design, build and run those solutions in a way that delivers bottom-line business value.

1616 North Fort Myer DriveArlington, VA 22209-3195

PRST STDUS Postage

P A I DPermit 1112

Merrifield, VA