" stud! of school reform networks identified fi%e salient features of such networks )Parker, 1;<<
51" strong sense of
to an idea5 'n the case of 6olden 6ate (ational 4ecreational "rea )66(4" in $an Francisco, (ational Park $er%ice and the local non-profits had a clear commitment to reclamation and conser%ation of nature so that it could enefit the larger communit!. This was a huge task, which state grants- e%en if the! were a%ailale, would not ha%e sufficed to achie%e. 'n the second case, it was a commitment to increase student achie%ement across "## schools- "massador "nnenergs challenge to "mericas pulic schools. Traditional school ! school reforms had failed to dent the o%erall s!stem.2" sense of
5 in oth the cases state ureaucrac! and ci%il societ! institutions or non-profits see an opportunit! for collaoration leading to success, in terms of pulic good. =" mixture of
5 'n the school reform networks, road ased learning plans and self-e%aluation plans were de%eloped ased on large scale sur%e!s. 'n 66(4", the park superintendent de%eloped a strategic plan and shared it with all the stake holders, who constituted >2? as opposed to mere 1>? of the park staff itself. These other pla!ers- uni%ersities and non-profits, were not onl! pro%iding funds and human resource ut o%iousl! were offering emotional support to each other in a situation full of uncertainties and flux. $ince the risk )& lame of failure is eing distriuted all o%er the network, this approach offers a etter ps!chological stance to explore and experiment with new ideas. "
who ensures %oluntar! participation and e0ual treatment5 The park superintendent appears to pla! this role in 66(4". 'n the school reform network, as it e%ol%es o%er time, there are man! facilitators5 $chool district administrator who sets up the network, who is replaced o%er time ! a Principal who tries to ensure continued operation of the network. #ater, since it was too much of a responsiilit!, a post of $chool famil! facilitator was created in man! schools. These shifting roles ha%e een captured well in = categories5 Founder )"rchitect, 3oundar! spanner @ the actor who is trusted ! more than one organization and the 3roker- who mediates exchange of information and transactions. A"n
ethos5 'n oth the cases, %arious actors are rising ao%e their routine role expectations/ the! are ale to percei%e a nole idea and their role in it. This is wh! the end result far exceeds the simple sum of their indi%idual contriutions. "s the school reform case stud! mentions- the network approach not onl! impro%ed 0ualit! of education for the students ut also exposed the educator )teachers to a higher form of collaorati%e learning.
Comparison with Resource dependency model
'n resource dependenc! model, if Brganization " depends on Brganization 3 for inputs )or outputs for its core processes B4 is in competition with it, it would ideall! attempt a merger- %ertical in the first case, horizontal in the second case. Bnce the merger is o%er, it must deal with the new organization 5 oth its assets and liailities. 3ut in a network model, it can create functional links with the other organization without a take o%er, and work through trust, negotiations and mutual political oligation.
How a network can assist non-profits?
"s discussed ao%e, an organization can e distracted from its core operations, ecause of the external constraints, like dependencies on critical resources- funds, human resource, know-how,
="s 0uoted in "nn #ieermann article.