Why Our Nonprofits Need To Network (With Other Nonprofits)

I have a problem with today’s cerebral palsy (CP) interventions and treatments: they’re barely making a difference. Typically they result in only 4-10% lifetime gains or improvements* and that’s not good enough. I want to see those numbers doubled or tripled -- pronto. 

But -- 

Can anyone tell me who’s in charge of upping the percentages? With whom should I get in touch? 

One might guess that the responsible party is one of the twenty-five (25) or so US-or-Canada-based nonprofits whose mission has to do with improving outcomes as they relate to CP. The fact of the matter, however, is that no single organization is responsible. Nor could it be. The challenge – how to dramatically increase the effectiveness of our interventions – is way too complex. Too many layers and uncertainties are tied to it.

It’s actually a great example of the kind of “wicked” problem that’s best tackled by a network. One of countless such problems our special needs communities face.

Wicked problems don’t have one right solution. They’re solved through trial and error, consensus decision making, and experimenting-and-learning your way to what works. Networked collaboration is the most efficient way to share the associated costs, risks, resources, etc. And our new digital infrastructure can make it all the more efficient.

The great promise of networked collaboration is that everybody wins. Each participant “gets better faster” by working with other participants. The objectives of all stakeholders are advanced while the larger issue /shared problem is addressed. The authors of The Power of Pull also stress the value of long-term relationships that are often fostered: "As participants get to know each other and find that they share similar ways of looking at their endeavors, they start to trust one another, which prompts even deeper levels of collaboration (and tacit knowledge creation) around the difficult challenges they share." 

Of course, success depends on how well you collaborate, i.e., on how well the work itself is orchestrated. There are plenty of big thinkers out there sorting out the various management approaches being taken, trying to uncover best practices, etc. Here, in closing, are two good examples and potential resources for you:

• The Tapscott Group is actively exploring methods for making collaboration happen both within organizations and via multi-stakeholder networks. 

• FasterCures has been studying ways that networks of organizations are collaborating to expedite biomedical research. Its Consortia-pedia provides an in-depth look at the "research-by-consortium" trend and is loaded with information meant to help guide and inform emerging and existing collaborative efforts.

*  *  *  *  * 

Nonprofit networks are among the most powerful forces that an organization can channel for the greater good.

Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits

*per Dr. Iona Novak, Head of Research at CP Alliance

ROUND TWO: Classified Info (Part B)

With regard to grouping my Twitter "Following"s, I'm coming across organizations that I -- no matter how hard I try -- can't fit neatly into any one of my four main sector-categories. Furthermore, their names all seem to end in words like "alliance" ..."consortium" ..."federation" ...and "council".

Networks are what those organizations are. And when I examine their components I see that they're generally made up of civil society + private + individual + government sector stakeholders. 

So what?

Well, influential author, advisor and strategist Don Tapscott suggests that self-organizing networks will be key in helping us to solve our growing global problems: climate change, conflict, poverty, water scarcity, infectious disease,  economic stagnation -- maybe even CP. 

Mr. Tapscott is leading a study about how these new patterns of connection can fulfill their potential in fixing a broken world. In the course of learning what makes big networks tick, he's determined that they come in nine (9) flavors and that every network represents primarily one of the nine.

Participants in knowledge networks, for example, are in the business of creating knowledge. TED and Wikipedia are two widely known examples. And we have at least one good example of a knowledge network in the CP sphere: 

NeuroDevNet is dedicated to helping children overcome neurodevelopmental disorders. Its mission is to "ensure generated knowledge is translated into tangible diagnostic, preventative, therapeutic, social, economic, and health benefits for all." It does so by working with "partners in academia, the community, not-for-profit sector, industry, and government, and across traditional disciplinary boundaries and sectors."

Going back to my previous post, I guess you could say that visualizing networks -- existing or potential -- is another use for my classification scheme. This graphic below shows some of the NeuroDevNet's general* stakeholder /member types: 

More to come along these lines in Part C.

*Reaching For The Stars (RFTS) is the only specific member I know of to date.