Telecentre-Europe

Recommendations, June 2008

2

Review of our vision/purpose:

Vision: • By 2010, Telecentres.Europe will be a viable network of telecentres and practioners in

Europe helping them to collaborate and share experiences with their counterparts within and outside the continent. It will be a recognized competent organization to advise decision makers on their e-strategies including e-Inclusion, e-Skills, and IT social business. By impact, it will be a leading European authority on developing citizens’ e-Skills, employing large scale information technologies for e-Inclusion, quality of life and social business.

Mission:• To establish an effective communication and operational environment for national telecentre

projects to collaborate, partner and integrate resources toward achieving the European strategic goals for building the European Information Society. Telecentres.Europe will follow a project-driven approach in its development based on recognizing leadership in different telecentre areas of competence.

Proposed Services:• Increase capacity and impact and outcomes of telecentres via

• Knowledge Sharing• Advocacy

3

Telecentre-Europe Success Indicators:

Future picture of the organization: Autonomous and sustainable organization able to deliver real change

through its network of telecentres. It would support knowledge and resource sharing, influence the funding and

policy environment and provide funding to centres to deliver activities in line with its mission.

The organization would employ experts in their field, and be widely known as the delivery organization who effects change, and is the ‘first call’ for telecentre practitioners and professionals across Europe and beyond.

Success indicators:• We will be successful if we are seen by the EU, industry and governments

across and beyond Europe as: • a thought leader in the field of digital inclusion,• a partner of choice for any project in this field,• a channel for delivery to ‘hard-to-reach’ ‘digitally excluded’ citizens, and• a source of knowledge in this field.

4

Telecentres.Europe - Current State Summary

Interest and need among prospective members

Opportunities and need exist in larger, external environment

Steering Committee Formed

Strategic direction established (vision, mission, member benefits)

Seed funding and support identified

Resources allocated to develop web presence & create online knowledge sharing among telecentres (via Esplai.)

Identify and recruit network staff to help spearhead the coordination and development of the network?

Create a strategic roadmap for the network with associated services, governing and organizational details outlined.

Secure operational and project funding.

In Place

Still

Needed

5

European Commission

National Governments

Local Governments

Industry

Stakeholders

Telecentres.E

urope

Organization Network

Funders

Others

Snapshot of Proposed Structure:

6

Forming and Running Networks

Lessons Learned & Best Practices

For Reference Only

7

Working Definition of Networks

• Many definitions of networks, with most sharing the following common characteristics1:

Groups of individuals and/or organizations…

With a shared concern or interest…

Who voluntarily contribute knowledge, experience and/or resources for shared learning, joint action and/or to achieve a shred purpose or goal…

And who rely on the network to support their own objectives.

1: Definition taken from “Networks and Capacity” Suzanne Taschereau and Joe Bolger, September 2006

“A network can be defined as an association of independent individuals or institutions with a shared purpose or goal, whose members contribute resources and participation

in two-way exchanges or communications.”

“Networks occur when organizations or individuals begin to embrace a collaborative process, engage in joint decision making and begin to act as a coherent entity.”

8

Most Common Benefits of Networks

• Increase access to information, expertise and financial resources

• Increase capacity and efficiencies• Increase visibility of issues• Develop shared practices, foster innovation• Mitigate risks• Reduce isolation and increase credibility• Share learning• Strengthen advocacy capacity and influence policy• Respond more effectively to complex realities and scale up

impact.

9

Common Forms of NetworksTaken from “Networks and Capacity”

“Networking” Informal Networks Network with some “Formal” Elements

Institutionaliz ed Networks Inter-Organizational Partnerships

Organizational form

o Web of relationships- loose ties of information exchange and reciprocity, fuelled by trust.

o Self-governing and self-regulating.

o Members develop ways to arrive at some agreements.

o Highly dependent on informal leadership to achieve purpose.

o Network with a name and collective identity.

o Guiding principles and norms for decision-making and emerging or well-established governance structures.

o Small secretariat facilitates functioning of the network and is primarily accountable to network members.

o Legally recognized entities with institutional legitimacy; can attract large project funding from the state, private sector donors.

o Structures and systems to manage and account for complex funded projects and to rapidly disseminate information and innovation.

o Contractual relationships, agreements and accountabilities where funded projects and delivering on results are the main drivers.

Typical Benefits

o Connections and Relationships

o Access to information and experience.

o Space to exchange information, develop knowledge and practices and/or mobilize as an alliance/coalition to advocate for change.

o Collective identity and external legitimacy.

o Capability to synthesize learning, to do research, to move things forward between meetings, to mobilize the network for joint action and to manage relationships.

o Capacity to scale up and to take on complex, externally funded projects as a network with greater impact.

o Capacity to address complex local, regional or global policy issues or integrated service delivery requiring collaboration among different stakeholder groups.

Typical Limit s and Challenges

o Benefits accrue mostly to individuals, with limited impact on organizations.

o Limited external legitimacy.

o Risk of dissention around purpose.

o Due to limitations of resources and challenges of complexity, risks that th e secretariat can begin to substitute for the network or does not have the capacity to meet all member expectations.

o The secretariat can become driven by contracts and funding imperatives.

o Competition for access to resources can arise in the network. This can lead to loss of trust and less willingness to freely share information.

o Formalization can reduce the free flow of information and limit dynamism and innovation.

o Fostering and maintaining trust, joint ownership and collaboration.

o Possible competition

and conflict over who holds power and has access to resources can lead to disengagement of key actors, loss of capabilities and legitimacy.

Most similar to direction of Telecentres.Europe

10

Success Criteria - Network Capabilities

• Informal Leadership: Leadership that is active and committed, gives space to others, is a “leader of the cause” the

network stands for, makes connections and facilitates relationships and makes good use of the resources in the network.

Successful networks rely on a core group of leaders with complementary skills. Usually includes: a secretariat, tasks groups and governing committee.

• Legitimacy and Collective Identity: Good at connecting individuals across organization, sectoral and geographic boundaries and

create a legitimate “third space for knowledge sharing, innovation and development of joint practice.

Foster a collective identity among members. Legitimacy is earned, not declared: Networks that meet member expectations for effectiveness

and efficiency are seen as legitimate:

• Technical Expertise and Resources: Able to tap into people’s technical expertise and sense of professionalism and connect them

with a higher purpose that motivates them. Offer possibilities for individuals to use their knowledge outside of their own organizations to

create new knowledge and “spark” energy for change that potentially can be used by others. Looked to, and recognized, by other stakeholders (I.e policy makers) as a place to go for deep

expertise.

11

Success Criteria - Network Capabilities

• Managing and Serving the Network: Focus first and foremost on serving network members. Earn and maintain the commitment of

members by ensuring that the network responds to explicit needs -- not constructed ones. Facilitate connections and encourage activity among members of the network and with

external actions; Provide technical advice and coaching and constantly scan the environment for opportunities

to advance the networks purpose and benefit its members.

• Communications & Management Systems: Have significant capability to use ICT to facilitate rapid and broad-based interaction among

members and with key stakeholders. Have the capacity to strengthen and supplement online interactions with face-to-face

interactions.

• Adaptive Capacity: Have leaders with strong analytical and adaptive capabilities who effectively anticipate and

respond to a changing environment. Invest in communication channels and rely on information exchanges to gather intelligence

from a range of sources and establish spaces for sharing and processing this information; Have the ability to reinvent their “working forms” as needed.

12

Typical Network Life-cycle(Adapted from “Knowledge Networks: Guidelines for Assessment” Heather Creech)

Initiation and Startup Status Quo and Growth Renewal/Decline Long-term Sustainability

Type of Interaction and work

o Members get to know each

other but work independently with little collaboration.

o While there is energy and enthusiasm for the network, there is also some protection of turf; individual institutional priorities take precedence over network friendships.

o A great deal of individual work is accomplished – new “knowledge” is created although not always jointly with other members.

o Some joint projects among members may take place.

o The network structure or building blocks are put in place (e.g. how network members engage with the network, decision making and governance structure of the network is established, etc.)

o The network becomes more stable and

some of the benefits can be seen: funding, contracts and work plans for the network are usually in place. Members will probably have met several times. It should be possible to assess the effectiveness of the network with respect to its knowledge contributions, communications and relationships with those it seeks to influence.

o Members continue to be productive and supportive of the network, however, a few may start to question the value of the network. This is a signal of maturing of relationships among the members.

o Network leaders (both formal and informal) need to recognize the maturing needs of the members and ensure that the structures and benefits continue to adapt to meet the changing needs.

o Often by the fifth or sixth year, network decline or vibrancy can be seen (i.e. member productivity and collaboration is high, indicating vibrancy or members miss deadlines, don’t execute their tasks, etc, indicating decline)

At this point in their history, networks may go in one of three directions: o Further stagnation

and outright failure; or

o Significant reductions of activities to simple information sharing around the network; or

o Real collaboration among a core group of members although not necessarily all members.

o Long-term

relationships built, sustained interaction among members including joint work, peer review of projects;

o Sophisticated network communications in place;

o Visibility of network and influence in larger field.

Years in Operation

1 to 3 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 10 years 10+ years

Telecentres.Europe Life Stage