A NEW LOOK AT THE VALUE-ADDING FUNCTIONSOF INTERGOVERNMENTAL NETWORKS

Robert AgranoffProfessor Emeritus

School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University

Bloomington, IN 47405Agranoff@indiana.edu

Paper prepared for Seventh National Public Management Research Conference,Georgetown University, October 9 – 11, 2003

1

A NEW LOOK AT THE VALUE-ADDING FUNCTIONSOF INTERGOVERNMENTAL NETWORKS

If performance is a hallmark of the “new public management,” do public networks

perform? Since the publication of Osborne and Gaebler’s Reinventing Government (1992),

public agency form and process is not enough to practitioners and academics alike, because these

pillars stop short of measured results. Questions of performance extend beyond the hierarchical

organization to the difficult arenas of interorganizational and intergovernmental collaborative

efforts (Radin 2000), as public administration takes networks seriously (O’Toole 1997). One

experienced practitioner (Linden 2002: xvi) concludes, “Today’s enlightened leaders in both

public and private sectors understand the value chains of which they are a part, and they know

that most of their pressing problems can be solved by collaborative actions with others.”

Pattakos and Dundon (2003), experts on innovation, suggest that a true culture of innovation

depends on efficacious collaborative activity. They indicate, however, that one of the biggest

obstacles to building creative capacity is “how to capitalize on insights and ideas across the

functional silos that thwart even the best intentions” (15).

The Agranoff and McGuire essay on “Big Questions of Public Network Management

Research,” (2001a: 318) raised the issue of “whether public management networks produce

solutions and results that otherwise would not have occurred through single, hierarchical

organizations.” One perspective on this is the social change thesis, that the emerging

information or knowledge era makes collaborative networking imperative (Lipnak and Stamps

1994; Clegg 1990; Kooiman 1993). Related is the problem change thesis, that society is now

tackling more difficult problems with few apparent solutions (Harmon and Mayer 1986) and that

networks inevitably emerge to bridge the jurisdictional and organizational gaps that result. Also,

2

changing intergovernmental roles (Agranoff and McGuire 2003; O’Toole 1996) and emerging

interactive technologies (Provan and Milward 1991; 1995; Harrison and Weiss 1998) give rise to

bureaucratic changes and the need to network. These explanations demonstrate that clearly more

is known about the forces that give rise to networks than assessing their performance.

The primary concern in network performance would appear to center on the question of

whether collaboration adds value to the public undertaking. As Moore (1995: 20) suggests,

public managers seek to “discover, define and produce public value,” extending discovery of

means to focus on ends, becoming “important innovators in changing what public organizations

do and how they do it.” In a similar vein, managers in networks must “look out to the value of

what they are producing,” to paraphrase Moore. In Bardach’s (1998: 8) path breaking book on

interagency action, he defines collaboration “as any joint activity by two or more agencies that is

intended to increase public value by their working together rather than separately.” From an

administrative standpoint, he asserts that collaboration should create social value in the same

way as its counterparts, differentiation and specialization. Collaboration results need to be

assessed because any loss in efficiency due to political, institutional and technical pressures,

diminishes public value (11). As such, we should not be impressed by the idea of collaboration

per se, but only if it produces better organizational performance or lower costs than with its

alternatives (17).

As collaborative structures Klijn (2003: 32) suggests that “Networks facilitate interaction,

decision-making, cooperation and learning, since they provide the resources to support these

activities, such as recognizable interaction patterns, common rules and organizational forms and

sometimes even a common language.” They are also bodies that “connects public policies with

their strategic and institutionalized context: the network of public, semi-public, and private actors

3

participating in certain policy fields (Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan 1997; 1). In engaging in

these behaviors, different networks facilitate a variety of interorganizational interactions (Alter

and Hage 1993). Networks raise the potential for more rational decision-making. Multiple

actors representing different mandates not only overcome information and resource asymmetries,

but create synergistic learning and problem-solving that might not be considered had only single

entities been involved (Agranoff and McGuire 2003: 92).

In hierarchical organizations, performance or value can be more easily attributed to

effectiveness by analyzing success in achieving goals. This test has to be modified with regard

to networks. Klijn and Koppenjan (2000: 148) suggest that the goal achievement method has

less credence because objectives are more autonomous, with no central coordinating actor, and

each of several actors may have differing objectives. They further argue that the use of ex ante

formulated objectives is usually untenable because actors adapt their perceptions and objectives

interactively, responding to other parties and to the environment. Also, if certain parties do not

participate in the interaction process, the chances are high that their interests and preferences will

not be represented in the derived solution. As a result, network results need to be measured by

the “ex post satisfying” criterion (Teisman 1992; 1995 quoted in Klijn and Koopenjan 2000),

based on the subjective judgment of network actors. In the final analysis, along with considering

the costs, actors have to determine the benefits derived. Thus, both substantive and process

elements need to be weighed.

Since networks are exchange vehicles and learning entities, a great deal of what is

accomplished emanates from the “actions of interaction.” Dundon (2002: 181) concludes that

innovation process networks can enhance teamwork, reduce boundaries, and promote the

innovative spirit. These nonlinear processes require high degrees of flexibility to accommodate

4

changes, tracking and reporting, decision-making at the working level and parallel processing

techniques (180). In a sense, form and function can contribute to value. Thus in the network

approach, the ex post judgment of actors about collaborated process and collaborated outcome

are used in order to determine the success or failure of policy processes (Klijn and Koppenjan

2000: 150; McGuire 2002).

In this study, heavy reliance is placed on the determinations made by the administrators

involved in the networks, in terms of both process and outcome value-adding. Administrators

perceptions of value-adding are explored in a preliminary way from an ongoing study of

intergovernmental networks based in Midwest states (Appendix A). The larger study is oriented

to answering three broad questions: 1. Are networks managed differently than single

organizations? 2. Do governmental boundaries collapse or do public roles change when

managers and program specialists participate in intergovernmental networks? 3. How do

networks add value that single agencies, organizations and jurisdictions cannot or do not? The

first question, on management, is initially addressed in a preliminary report published by the

IBM Endowment, Leveraging Networks (2003a) and the second question is addressed in the

author’s 2nd Annual Founders Forum paper at ASPA (2003b). The third question is addressed in

this paper, albeit in a preliminary fashion.

The question of network value-adding features is centered on their ability to handle

information/technology/resources through a nonhierarchical self-organizing process, held

together by evolving mutual obligation, reaching consensus based decisions. Intergovernmental

networks operate on both vertical (e.g. federal, state, local) and horizontal (e.g. county, special

district, nongovernmental organizations) planes. Moreover, not all networks are alike. Their

purposes vary from information exchange to adopting joint policies. The paper turns initially to

5

an explanation of network types, followed by exploration of what exactly it is that networks do.

These features, in turn, allow for a “first cut” summary of the process and outcome values that

emanate from the networks studied. Then the costs of network involvement to the participants

are identified. The conclusion suggests that the values added by networks are real but indeed

quite complicated.

TYPES OF NETWORKS

Previous research on intergovernmental networks has indicated that not all networks are

alike. Many in fact are not always policy-adjusting engines, as assumed (Radin et. al. 1996).

Before the “bar” on their success is raised too high in regard to expectations, some classification

in relation to primary functions is in order. As mentioned, they exist to take one or more

advantages of their individually held knowledge, expertise, resources and strategic potential to

solve problems. In this study, the functional classification of Alter and Hage (1993) is

approximated – exchange, concerted action and joint production – but adds a knowledge

enhancing category. Some bodies come together to provide information and share knowledge,

others not only engage in these activities but mutually develop new abilities, whereas others also

develop new strategies and provide new and sometimes adapted programming opportunities for

its component organizations, and others perform all of these functions and make joint decisions

and take action. The third column of Appendix A identifies the type for each of the studied

networks.

The first type, information networks, bring partners together exclusively to exchange

agency/organization policies and programs, technologies and potential solutions. Actions and

6

strategies are not adopted because they are the voluntary province of individuals and

organizations. They tend to involve large numbers of stakeholders, many of whom have quite

opposite views, who come together to exchange information, examine the depths of a given

problem, and to explore “possible actions” that stakeholders might take. Such actions are not

mandated but are almost always voluntary and exclusively taken within the partner agencies. As

such, informational networks tend to be broad convening bodies or “sounding boards” but never

decision bodies. Nevertheless, with the exception of not reaching decisions they experience

many of the same information and knowledge practices as other networks.

Most networks become more extensively involved. The next category of networks,

developmental networks, become engaged in partner information and technical exchange

combined with education and member services that directly enhance member information

capacity to implement solutions within home agencies or organizations. These networks are

heavily engaged in the creation as well as the exchange of knowledge and technology, and many

of their activities include seminars, conferences, institutes and even demonstrate strategies that

partner members are encouraged to adopt. They also are important informal venues for dyadic

and sometimes multiple-agency collaboration as a byproduct of the networking activity.

The third category, outreach networks, go one step further by carving out programming

strategies for clients that are adopted and carried out elsewhere, usually by partner organizations.

In such networks partners come together to exchange information and technologies, sequence

programming, exchange resource opportunities, pool client contacts and enhance access

opportunities that lead to new programming. In other words, concerted actions in the form of

potential and actual action frameworks for clients or agencies are developed, only action is not

formally adopted by the network, it is merely suggested.

7

The fourth category, action networks, involve partners coming together to make

interagency adjustments and formally adopt collaborative courses of action and/or deliver

services. These networks take the kind of joint production or action that is commonly associated

with most policy/program networks. They develop interactive working procedures to

collectively adopt programs and implement them through component organizations. To be sure,

these action networks also are heavily engaged in information exchange, capacity development,

and discovering new programming opportunities but they are distinguished by their ability to

engage in collective action. In many ways their decision component makes them different and

pose considerable difficulties in achieving their aims because they make collective win/lose

choices among different jurisdictions and organizations, yet they normally share decision

implementation among partner organizations.

The key terms that distinguish networks therefore are exchange, capacity, strategy, and

decision. All networks appear to exchange but not all engage in the other activities. Those that

enhance capacity do not appear to adopt strategies or make interactive program decisions.

Strategic networks exchange and build capacity but do not take joint decisions. Those that make

collaborative decisions also take advantage of all of the other collaborative processes.

Information networks are similar to councils of organizations that only make mutual reports and

conduct limited studies (e.g. health and welfare council of organizations), developmental and

outreach networks are like consortia or confederations that develop but do not implement action,

whereas action networks are like partnerships and joint ventures.

One question that might be asked in this regard is what leads a collaborative to adopt one

type or another? While that issue is beyond the scope of the paper, some of the underlying

factors are that: all of the action networks have some federal or state legislative enactment that

8

authorizes decisions, the outreach networks are limited from action by a myriad of agency

legislation, policies and practices, the developmental networks are not only limited by agency

operations and procedures but many of its members have very similar and potentially competing

missions, and the information networks share virtually all of the empowerment limitations and

also have broad potential and actual polarizing members.

The concern with regard to this paper is that there are distinctions between networks and

they must be taken into account when assessing value. Since all intergovernmental networks are

not alike, they probably cannot be held up to the same standard of success. For example, how

can an information network be judged by the standard of an action network when it never

decides? They should not but often are, in large part because of the limited research tradition in

network study, particularly their differentiation. As the potential for network value is assessed,

these classificatory distinctions are maintained.

WHAT CAN NETWORKS DO?

If so many networks are limited in scope are they useful? The exploration of network

value begins with a focused look at what kinds of public actions they undertake. These actions

provide the foundation of understanding their collaborative contributions. At the existing stage

of the fourteen network study the following seven roles appear most relevant: problem

identification and information exchange, identification of extant technologies,

enhancement/development of emerging technologies, improving knowledge infrastructures,

mutual capacity-building, reciprocal strategies and programming, and joint policy

making/programming.

9

1. Problem identification and information exchange. This is a common function of all

the networks studied and, of course, the primary function of information networks. Nettlesome

policy problems mean that it is rare that a single government or agency has a monopoly on

potential problem solutions, or the resources or programs to deal with them. Some, for example

non-point source pollution, involve a wide range of actors, e.g. environmental activitists, public

agency managers and specialists along with farmers and ranchers. The information function in

networks is core to its operations because somehow or other multiple parties need to be

convened to explore the various dimensions of a problem, then become aware of the technology

that is being used to deal with each facet of a problem, and to ultimately learn about how the

various agencies plan to take action with regard to these technical solutions.

The key to the network information process is bringing in those stakeholders that are

necessary to approach an issue. In regard to watershed management, a network like the Darby

Partnership in central Ohio has to involve farmers, state/provincial and federal

environmental/natural resource/agriculture commerce agencies, local governments, developers,

conservation districts, advocacy groups and many more. Darby inevitably engenders exchanges

among many opposing interests but their aim is to get the parties to the table so all can be heard

and a broad perspective on degradation and mitigation is exposed. All Darby Creek solutions

appear considerably more politically and technically formidable than the original conveners ever

imagined but realistic. Darby leaders relate one conclusion that will become clear in virtually all

networks, that everybody will not agree on the problem.

The next phase will involve some form of formal and informal exchange of information

and broad discussion of the extent of various problems. As organizations begin to interact they

develop measures of mutual respect and hopefully mutual obligation or trust. Organization

10

activities with regard to a problem(s) are put on the table. These discussions also reveal where

each agency’s programs and plans lie, along with potential and actual resources that might be

dedicated to a problem. For example, in the Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance in Nebraska,

one conservation district presents its five year flood control and wetland development program

and the state environmental agency reveals new federal regulations regarding wastewater

treatment and its new state plan. These exchanges provide important resources for network

actors, in terms of information useful for one’s role as a representative or boundary spanner for

the home agency, and as part of a network “pool” of information. In the case of the Lower Platte

Alliance, it includes information exchanges among three substate conservation districts, six state

agencies, and four federal agencies.

There is the possibility of more. Even if a network stops short of joint strategy

development or joint action potential problem solutions can be raised in all networks. First, the

network can pool the information and decide that the depth of the problem is insufficient.

Second, it can jointly look deeper into the problem. For example, conservation networks can

explore the advantages/disadvantages of different kinds of nitrite-based fertilizers and their use,

application amounts, time of application, and so on. Networks can also take the next step, to

decide how other areas have tried to solve similar problems. Indeed, an inventory of potential

solutions can be taken, and network meetings and workshops can be used to learn more about the

most feasable solutions. Darby has undertaken all of these means. Third, as the Lower Platte

Alliance has done several times, the stakeholders can be educated about how to undertake a

given solution, and how any potential action will intersect with other stakeholders’ actions. Here

the hope is that the relevant network participants will voluntarily take action.

11

Is all of this “non-action” activity worth the effort? Many of those involved in networks

would say that in this complex world the learning and information experiences gained are useful

to the home organization and it raises the policy dialogue on both problems and solutions to a

more realistic level. It ratchets up the potential for agency-based action. Others, who want

collaborative program adjustment or joint action are clearly frustrated by the protracting of

solutions that might be solved in direct political/governmental arenas. Nevertheless the

exchange function is performed by virtually all networks, and for some they may not be able to

go a great deal further.

2. Identification of extant technologies. This function moves information one step up the

line because it focuses on workable problem solutions that have resulted from collaborative

processes elsewhere. How can a group of stakeholders or organizations work together to tackle a

nettlesome problem? Rural development is a good example, because it is not only information

based, but it has no government organization home and most program approaches are

collaborative (Agranoff and McGuire 2000; Radin et. al 1996). Rural development networks

need to know how problems of community enhancement, business attraction or infrastructure

provision are being solved elsewhere. Such program and technical information constitutes the

“transactional DNA” of these interorganizational relationships. Most of the networks studied

performed many aspects of this function.

How is extant technology discovered and revealed? This flow of information is

generated within the technical expertise reach of network participants or it is sought outside of

the network, for example from researchers and vendors. Actually there are many different

vehicles: roundtable presentations, attendance at regional and national conferences, invited

speakers at network meetings, web postings, and email transmissions. A number of networks

12

have technology committees, devoted to finding and bringing the latest in developments to the

entire network. The technical committees of the transportation networks are essential for finding

feasibility information that is cycled into decisions. A number of the networks studied have full-

time technical staff (in the case of some, contracted staff) who are subject matter specialists

primarily responsible for finding and presenting solutions. For example, EDARC/Access

Indiana relies on a technical staff of contractor information system approaches and performs

market studies for network administrators. This flow of technical knowledge is part of the

ongoing operations of most networks.

One of the networks studied is illustrative of the processes of technical expertise

exchange. The Iowa Communication Network is the broadcast, narrowcast, data transmission

and telecommunication vehicle for federal, state and local governments (and hospitals) through

its nearly 4000 miles of fiber-optic cable. At the first level of ICN, operations and policy

expertise is exchanged through a set of formal advisory committees or councils: Education,

Telemedicine, Telecommunications, Library, etc. At another level there are the formal and

informal interactions of the policy and the operational people, such as the Director of Education

for Iowa Public Broadcasting or the Chief Information Officers for the Iowa Departments of

Public Health and Transportation on the one hand, and ICN management staff and division

heads. At yet another level, operations technology is informally transmitted as ICN operating

staff (some of whom are contract employees) interact with the information executives and

agency technical staff. In other words, as needs are exchanged and programs are adjusted

valuable telecom expertise is accessed and exchanged.

Whether formal or informal, technical knowledge is accessed and enhanced by

transactional contacts within the network. While this function is less of a core activity in

13

information networks, it does occur to some degree, or at least among some actors within the

network. The developmental, outreach and action networks cannot exist without it.

3. Adaptation/development of emergent technologies. This next function is an obvious

extension of the previous. There are situations in the life of a network where an extant

technology is not feasible. Moreover, the network cannot make incremental adjustments to make

it fit the situation at hand. They are situations where analytical thinking must be supplemented

with “more creativity and vision, more mental flexibility, and more intuition” (author emphasis),

in order to meet the challenges of information societies in an increasingly chaotic and complex

world (Franz and Pattakos 1996: 638). In effect, the network must collaboratively transfer or

create a technical solution to suit their problem that is adapted from existing research and

technology.

An example from the Ohio Small Communities Environmental Infrastructure Group

(SCEIG) can illustrate this process. This outreach network was formed in 1990 and involves a

myriad of federal, state, substate, local, university and nongovernmental organizations that help

small towns access funding and technical solutions by laying out interagency strategies that the

communities then access for drinking water and wastewater treatment. In past years the SCEIG

had pioneered in the development and financing of wastewater reuse processes. At the time of

the author’s field research, the network was looking at how a small village could establish cluster

permits to install, operate, and comply with EPA regulations for a set of nearby settlements and

villages. SCEIG’s Technology Committee had already looked at existing technology and

developed its own model system for constructing such a creative system. It was an extended

process of research and development by a group of network hydrologists and engineers. The

network’s finance committee was then charged with exploring the costs and financing potential

14

for such a system, and to report back to the larger group. Meanwhile state environmental

officials on the broader network group were charged with consulting with U.S. EPA regarding

the process of obtaining operational permits for cluster systems. When the entire process is put

together - - construction, financing, permitting - - the project will be piloted in a cluster with a

designated village as the center of an operating entity. If the pilot works, somewhere down the

line the cluster system will become part of the SCEIG Curriculum Committee’s training

materials and workshops.

This network process is not unusual, particularly for outreach and action networks.

While there are clearly many underutilized extant technologies that can be transferred, there are

always some that do not fit. For the case of SCEIG, the problem was initially brought to its

Technology Committee by a particular village, and it was recognized that this was not an isolated

problem. As a result, the small group went to work, used the knowledge available about

construction of linked systems, and expanded it to solve the cluster problem. Then it became a

legal and financial problem. Could it have been done by a single organization? Probably not,

since no single person would have all of the engineering, legal or finance expertise, not to speak

of those related to the politics or sequencing and processing the project. These are important and

increasingly frequent challenges for networks: taking existing knowledge and extending it to

solve some new challenge where collaboration is clearly the best vehicle.

4. Improving Knowledge Infrastructure. Since networks exist to expand and transact

information among disparate agency/organization actors and apply it to problems, facility to

move knowledge is critical. Networks do not have the same hierarchical transmission channels

as organizations, with their legal and moral authority, nor do participants frequently meet

together on a face-to-face basis. Also, network actors are infrequently in direct contact with one

15

another and with the clients or populations they are trying to assist. As a result, electronic

transmission vehicles like email, websites, electronic bulletin boards are important supplements

to postal mail and telephone. But the need for information exchange among heavily scheduled

administrators and program managers in different organizations places pressures on adaptation of

communication approaches.

The work of the Iowa Geographic Information Council (IGIC), a multisector network of

Geographic Information Systems Users, is illustrative of information infrastructure expansion.

As a group that shares data, explores standards, and facilitates GIS user cooperation, this would

seem to naturally follow. Its twenty-five member board and its committees meet by the Iowa

Communication Network’s interactive narrowcasting facilities. IGIC employs a State GIS

Coordinator, who is part of the Cooperative Extension Program at Iowa State University. This

specialist is trying to expand existing GIS usage from 25 counties to all ninety-nine. IGIC

operates a web-based GIS clearing house that includes: a Resource Guide; data for the Color-

Infrared and Digital Ortho-Quadrant photos for the entire state; links to other GIS sites in three

states; Image Map Server to deliver aerial photos and other digital imagery; listings of GIS users

to help local governments with election precinct and district boundaries (Iowa is currently the

only U.S. state that requires districting by a neutral commission); creation of a new real time

base map for local planning and zoning that avoids weekly translation of cadastral data;

development of a hazard analysis and geo-referenced risk assessment system for the state

Emergency Management Division; a system that combines traditional cemetery record keeping

with GIS and the Internet; and, extended uses of global positioning system technologies to

transportation, land use, soil and agriculture, and environmental management. IGIC is but one of

some thrity-seven state level intergovernmental GIS networks in the U.S.

16

While an argument could be raised that a GIS network would be an exception because its

business is information, that is not the case at all. While not all are not as deeply involved in

information as IGIC, most of the networks look for new ways to facilitate their information

function and find new ways to reach their audiences. The rural development networks are very

conscious of the remoteness of many of the people they are trying to address, and try to ascertain

the extent of lack of accessibility (in certain settings there are also generational and income

barriers) to the Internet and the World Wide Web. As a result, they work harder to extend

electronic communication to the informal outreach networks that touch rural people: county

extension, college university rural institutes, community colleges, high schools, state agency

offices at the county level, chambers of commerce, and other voluntary associations. Another

means most frequently used is information transmission through the vehicles used by the

agencies themselves, e.g. those of federal agencies and state departments. Participating agency

representatives are expected to “extend” the networks reach by carrying messages through their

channels, intraorganizational and sometimes to their clientele.

5. Capacity building. This is a commonly used term that has disparate meanings in the

public management literature. One widely accepted definition is the ability to: anticipate and

influence change; make informed and intelligent policy decisions; attract, absorb, and manage

resources; and evaluate current activities in order to guide future action (Honadle 1981).

Networks are heavily engaged in this type of activity, as the previous examples of the Iowa State

GIS Coordinator role and global positioning system enhancement would suggest. In regard to

networks, capacity-building means developing and transmitting the knowledge architecture for

its partners and clients to adapt it. This is the core function of developmental networks, but it is

17

also clearly a secondary function of outreach and action networks, and of some information

networks.

The activities of the Partnership for Rural Nebraska (PRN) are illustrative. PRN is an

intergovernmental network among Nebraska State government (environment, health and human

and services, economic development and Rural Development Commission), Federal Government

(agriculture and natural resources), The University of Nebraska-Extension and the Nebraska

Development Network (an organization of regional development districts and local development

associations /departments). PRN’s activities are focused on: 1) an annual Nebraska Rural

Institute, geared to information exchange and presentation of development solutions; 2) an

Education Committee that plans the Institute, engages in cross-training of staff of component

organizations and conducts seminars; 3) Rural News Bits, a monthly electronic newsletter where

ideas are shared and educational and financial opportunities are exchanged; 4)an annual Rural

Poll on trends and attitudes of rural Nebraska; 5) the Nebraska Cooperative Development Center,

staffed and funded by three of the partners, to help create agricultural opportunities; 6) staff

sharing among a number of the partners, e.g. Nebraska Development Network’s Cooperative

Development Center, and the Rural Development Commission; and, 7) a means of increased

communication among the major players who are involved in rural development

(http://cari.unl.edu/prn1/). These capacity building functions define PRN as a developmental

network.

Although perhaps not on as dedicated a basis as PRN or other development networks,

most other types of networks similarly try to enhance partner capacities. In other words, they are

interested in more than transmission of knowledge, but also in its utilization by its participants

within their organizations. The latter requires capability. That is why annual meetings,

18

technology seminars, technical assistance, cross-training on a cross-organization basis is so

important to networks. Participating organizations need to do more than learn about something,

they want to be able to do it. Implementing knowledge into taking internal action requires a

level of capability that the network can help raise.

6. Reciprocal Programming/joint strategies. Whereas it turns out that many networks

prove not to be involved in joint decisions that lead to policy actions, some develop collaborative

strategies for actions that are carried out within individual agencies and programs. As a

collective, the network looks at a problem with the involvement of a variety of agencies and

programs, and charts an agreed course of action that is implemented elsewhere. These

strategic/programmatic approaches can be institutionalized or blueprinted, such as with a

common interagency funding application form, or be tailored to a particular situation, e.g.

attracting a business. They can be ad hoc, such as when a network helps a particular community

access central business district improvement funds or they can be policy-oriented, for example

the actions of a network in developing a multi-agency/organization value-added agriculture

approach for a state. Reciprocal programming for strategy making can be either a formal or an

informal activity of the network.

A prime example of these workings are the network activities of the United States

Department of Agriculture/Rural Development (USDA/RD) in Nebraska. Officially a state

office of a federal agency, in FY 2001USDA/RD funded about $84 million in rural non-farm

programs in the state, including some twenty different grant and loan programs, in utilities

services and infrastructure, housing, business development and cooperatives. The agency is the

major rural funder of water and wastewater improvements, community facilities (libraries,

community centers, child care facilities), telemedicine, housing repair and purchases, and

19

business loans feasibility plans, and leadership recruitment (www.rurdev.usda.gov/ne/). It

regularly leverages these funds with a host of “financial partners” from other federal, state and

nongovernmental organizations. In a formal sense, USDA/RD in Nebraska is a major partner

and is regularly in attendance at the activities of PRN, the Nebraska Development Network and

participates more informally with several planning efforts of the Nebraska Department of

Economic Development (Community Development Block Grant), U.S. Small Business

Administration, substate development districts, and county-level development associations.

One important formalized blueprint approach is the work of the Water Environmental

Wastewater Action Committee (WEWAC), a group of funders that meets monthly at USDA/RD

offices in Lincoln to apply their commonly established approach and pre-application for funding

water projects of particular small towns. After WEWAC meets and agrees upon who is going to

fund which component of a program, the funding agencies deal with each city applicant through

their standard agency procedures. The process avoids overlapping and duplicate applications,

and most important, gives the applicants a realistic course of action that allows for necessary

multiple source funding. In this process, the network collaborates to help communities apply a

pre-established interorganizational strategy, fits the individual applicant into the collective’s

framework and makes any necessary adjustments along the line. Then the applicant goes

through the multiple application process of each agency to actually receive funding.

The informal and situational networking of USDA/RD is at the heart of its strategic

leveraging activity. While too numerous for a complete inventory, the major informal networks

are promoted with: local economic development corporations; private lending institutions;

village mayors, clerks, librarians and fire officials; community foundations; area agencies on

aging and social services agencies; Nebraska Department of Economic Development; Federal

20

Home Loan Bank (FHLB); Nebraska Investment Financing Authority (NIFH); Federal-State

Cooperative Extension Service; U.S. Small Business Administration; and Nebraska’s

Conservation and Development Districts. In addition to USDA/RD’s outreach and grant/loan

processing programs, the agency partners with one or more of these entities to help individual

citizens, local governments or associations “package” a response that it cannot fund on its own.

For example, virtually all of their home loans involve at least three to four pots of money,

including: USDA/RD, NIFH, FHLB and private lenders. A business program may include a

USDA/RD grant for business market feasibility planning, SBA and NIFH loans for start-up

capital and Extension Service training for business operations. In each case the agencies

themselves execute the programs. USDA/RD has over ninety staff statewide who spend between

ten and twenty percent of their time arranging this type of collaborative programming.

These ad hoc strategic approaches constitute very important collaborative work for some

networks. They fall just short of the types of decisions and policies that governance networks

are usually ascribed to take, but are important outputs because the joint effort pools valuable

information, makes strategic (collective and case-based) adjustments, and implement programs

interactively, albeit individually. These actions are most typical within outreach networks,

although they can also be secondary functions of action networks and, at least informally, can be

and are frequently spin-offs of developmental and occasionally information networks. Generally

speaking, incompatibility of government agency regulations and procedures prevents the actors

in these networks from moving to the next step of joint decisions, but reciprocal programming

and joint strategies are only a step (albeit an important one) removed. Given built-in agency

limitations, along with lack of legal authorization, these strategic blueprints are the most some

networks can accomplish.

21

7. Joint policy making/programming. While this function is most associated with

networks, a limited number appear to actually undertake such actions as a body itself. Of the

networks studied, only four actually vote on or enact policies that effect all of the component

agencies/government organizations, and in each case they are legally chartered (two federal, two

state) to take such actions. As collaboratives, action networks are quite different than

representative assemblies, where formal votes are taken, majority rules and political

considerations are paramount. In action networks, heavy doses of research and technical

knowledge are entered into the proceedings and decisions, deliberations are as likely to be as

technical as they are political, and voting is more of an enablement formality after a negotiated

agreement is reached.

The Des Moines (Iowa) Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMMPO) is

responsible for transportation planning and funding under the U.S. Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st Century (TEA-21) (USC§4501 Title23). The agency is established under Iowa law

(28E) and includes county and city governments, as well as a series of state and federal

government and special district officials who are non-voting advisory representatives. As in the

case of most of the other 200 plus MPOs, the DesMoines MPO has a Transportation Policy

Committee and a Technical Committee (where the transit authority and airport representatives

vote). In addition to all kinds of planning studies, DMMPO is responsible for adopting the Long

Range Transportation Plan and to allocate federal-state transportation (highways, mass transit)

funds for the local area. This is where the joint policies come into play, as the needs and

feasibility study with MPO and local government staff assistance are examined by the Technical

Committee, deliberated and accommodated, and sent to the Policy Committee.

22

As a network “council” comprised of local government officials (mostly elected, some

are appointed) they are supposed to both represent their jurisdiction’s interest as well as think

and decide for the good of the metropolitan area. The latter is not easy to achieve, as the core

city of Des Moines finds itself losing population to the suburbs, and for a number of eastern,

northern and southern communities that see the accelerated growth corridor to the west of Des

Moines. The issue is compounded by turnover of local elected officials, in office and on the

MPO Transportation Policy Committee.

As a result, the MPO decides more like a network than a legislative decision body. It has

taken important measures to enhance a metropolitan perspective. First, the long range planning

process relies heavily on the consensus-oriented work of the Technical Committee, which

includes some overlapping members with the Policy Committee. When the Technical

Committee reports a draft of the plan only minor adjustments are made before an actual vote is

taken by the Policy Committee. Second, individual community funding projects are voted on

only after the Technical Committee has examined their feasibility and suggested consensus-

based adjustments. Then the staff assigns a priority number based on a predetermined rotating

principle. These rotation principles are based on population impact and time span since the last

project was funded for a community. Third, an informal process of getting community

representatives to “go along” with metropolitan priorities in the plan is engaged by the Policy

Committee Chair (a west suburban city council member) and Vice-Chair (a state representative

from a town-suburb in the east), and the secretary Treasurer (a city manager from a town that is

becoming a suburb in the north). In particular, there is the concern of moving the city of Des

Moines nine (of 31) representatives to positively act on anything that might benefit the suburbs.

Fourth, voting is through a predetermined weighted process, a formula that includes feasibility,

23

rotation and population, that gives the core city the most votes but a minority in the overall

process. This formula virtually predetermines the vote, and while it has not satisfied everyone, it

has reduced a great deal of political friction. Overall, the sequence of long range priorities,

technical screening, informal persuasion and the voting formula help keep the MPO together as a

collaborative. Indeed, the highest degree of acrimony was reported to be related to a

housekeeping or operation issue, when the Policy Committee approved a move of the MPO

offices from the City of Des Moines Planning Department to a west suburban office complex.

In a similar fashion, most action networks have to find a way to respect component

members yet adopt the necessary collaboration-supportive technical and quasi (or pseudo)

parliamentary moves that allow them to blend knowledge with joint policy/activity. Even though

they may be legally chartered and enabled bodies like DMMPO, they come together as

representatives of different government, quasi government and nongovernmental organizations,

with all of their attendant aims, rules and procedures. They represent different needs,

organizational cultures and political interests. They must decide but they do not have

hierarchical authority. Instead, the kind of action they take is based on negotiated adjustment

while going through a learning process.

VALUE-ADDING: PROCESS AND OUTCOME

The next step in understanding value-adding builds on the seven basic actions. It looks at

process and outcome from both organization and network perspectives. As the guided

discussions were undertaken and analyzed, it became clear that not only were administrators

discussing process and outcome gains accrued for their networks, but they also mentioned the

benefits that network involvement accrues to the home organization and to themselves as

24

managers and program specialists. To them the rationale for investment in the network entailed

more than serving some collective public purpose, vaguely understood, such as facilitated

transportation or rural development, but also entailed certain advantages the network can bring to

their organization’s mission and functioning and to them as professionals involved in public

programs. Figure 1 provides an accounting of the different types of “values added” in the

network study from the standpoint of the: 1) administrator/specialist, 2) participating

organization, 3) network process, and 4) network outcomes.

Perhaps the most overlooked dimension in the literature are those benefits that accrue to

the boundary-spanning individuals who represent organizations in networks. An exception is

Craig Thomas’ (2003) study of interagency collaboration in biodiversity preservation. While he

dispels the notion that line managers are eternal turf and budget protectors, the desire to maintain

autonomy is real, because managers are convinced they know best, and because of their desire

for control over the tasks and outputs of their agencies (35). Program specialists or professionals

more easily collaborate, Thomas suggests, because they belong to social communities that

transcend agency boundaries. The professionals he studied belong to epistic communities that

“have similar values, believe in the same causal relationships, and have a common methodology

for validating knowledge, all of which shape their formulation of best management practices”

(41). The five work groups of the Indiana Olmstead – TAG provide a depth of knowledge and

contacts that improves the ability of program specialists and state administrators is in dealing

with their own program challenges, and in working with one another across agencies, with

NGOs, and with the federal government. For example, the Community Assisted Services Task

Group has created newly facilitated opportunities to bridge the boundaries of State of Indiana

programs and thus new coordinated services opportunities for agency clients.

25

Those benefits of networking listed in the first column of Figure 1 probably are thus

achieved more naturally to specialists, but nevertheless also accrue to the managers of programs

and agencies. For most involved, the act of networking broadens the scope of interaction beyond

the organization’s boundaries, as new information is placed on agendas, and communication

becomes facilitated through established channels outside the organization. The individual’s

potential field of technical knowledge, that is the “expansion of possibilities,” is broadened.

Finally, and perhaps most important from the standpoint of network results, managers/program

specialists expand their capacities to collaborate, critical elements upon which additional levels

of capability to achieve collaborated results can accrue (Bardach 1998: 274).

Benefits and results of networking to participating organizations is deeply rooted in the

literature on networking. Synthesizing the extant literature when the “age of the network”

became visible, a number of baseline authors point to the need to network in order to: expand

information and access expertise from other organizations, pool and access financial and other

resources, share risks and innovation investments, manage uncertainty, fulfill the need for

flexibility in operation and response time, and assessing other adaptive efficiencies (Alter and

Hage 1993; Powell 1990; Perrow 1992). For example, although the Indiana Economic

Development Council is reluctant to take positions as a collective, its research on economic

trends and practices in other states accrue to the agencies most heavily invested in it, such as the

Indiana Department of Family and Social Services Administration, and the Indiana Small

Business Development Center, providing them with expanded information and potential to pool

resources or access adaptive efficiencies.

Many such organizational benefits are revealed in column two of Figure 1. The list

makes clear that pooling and accessing knowledge and resources held by individuals and other

26

organizations is essential. The ability to learn about and acquire new technologies that can be

adapted by the home organization is also essential. Also, more regular channels of interagency

contacts occur as a byproduct of network activity, a sort of substitute for absent hierarchical

channels. Finally, and most important for the home organization, networking provides formal

and informal channels for critical problem-solving or program adjustment potential, either on a

multi-party or bilateral basis.

The importance of network process results was suggested earlier, particularly their ability

satisfy those who are involved. They are both similar and different from single organizations.

Network processes are more collective than authority-based in regard to organizing, decision-

making, and programming, but in terms of the human resource dynamics of communication,

leadership, group structure, and mechanisms of reaching collaborative agreements they are more

similar to those of single organizations (Agranoff 2003a). As a process, network management is

said to involve “steering” of interaction processes that sequences the following phases:

activation, or initiating activation processes; guided mediation; finding strategic consensus; joint

problem solving; and, activities of maintenance, implementation, and adjustment (Kickert and

Koppenjan 1997: 47-51). The SCEIG network in Ohio follows a similar sequence, as it uses

participant knowledge and contributed resources to explore and develop capacities in

collaborating. Its strategic blueprints are virtually always the products of a clearly established

process that engages its multiple actors from university, consulting, government, and

nongovernment sectors.

Column three of Figure 1 displays many of these process outcomes from the perspectives

of study participants. The networks become important platforms for bringing together

individuals who have potential resources and a stake in certain problems, deepen and broaden the

27

knowledge pool of technical information and to adapt it to immediate situations. The process

presents opportunities for interagency processing and problem-resolution on a regular, channeled

basis. Perhaps most important are those other collective benefits, including those that are related

to continuing interagency “group processing”: information flows, new information channels,

potential problem-solving avenues, mutual learning, training and development,

comprehensive/strategic planning, and mutual understanding leading to increased trust. Without

the constant massaging of these elements of group dynamics or applied behavioral science as

directed to interagency activity (Weiner 1990), network outcomes are more difficult to achieve.

This leaves the tangible outcomes of network activity. As O’Toole (1997: 46-47)

indicates, networked solutions are needed to: 1) try to solve the most difficult of policy problems

that no single agency can tackle, 2) overcome the limitations on direct government intervention

to solve real problems, 3) recognize that political imperatives usually demand broad coalitions of

interests to solve problems, 4) capture second-order program effects (e.g. lack of employment

opportunities in rural development) that generate interdependencies, and, 5) cope with layers of

mandates and requirements that invoke the involvement of many jurisdictions and organizations.

In this respect, tangible pubic performance is hard to directly measure in relation to networked

solutions. Robert Behn (2001: 77) suggests, “the one-bill, one-policy, one-organization, one-

accountability holdee principle doesn’t work for performance” because most programs involve

collaborative undertakings. The Iowa Communications Network maybe a state-chartered

program, but its legal requirements for competitive broadcast and service pricing means that it

must serve many interests and functions, in a way that “satisfies” numerous users, stakeholders,

and public agencies. While originally providing extended education and telemedicine services, it

28

now is heavily engaged in homeland security, economic development, information transmission

and intranet provision, among other processes.

Networks provide many such venues for collaborative solutions, as listed in the fourth

column of Figure 1. Most important are the policy adaptations that they are able to reach,

identified as “facilitated solutions,” applications to “places” (e.g. a metropolitan area), reciprocal

programming, enhanced governance and program and service innovations. These outcomes

represent the kind of adjustments that intergovernmental policy networks are designed to address

(Agranoff and McGuire 2001b; Kickert and Koppenjan 1997; O’Toole 1997). Other outcomes

relate to the end stages of the process itself: exchanged resources, program interfaces, joint or

collaborated data bases, mutually adapted technologies, and enhanced interagency knowledge

infrastructures. While some of these “products” may fall short of policy solutions or new ways

of programming (although their potential for subsequent solution should not be underestimated),

they are the only outcomes some networks can achieve.

The value-adding balance sheet suggests that there is much more to network production

than policy adjustment. Whereas forged policy solutions might be the ultimate aim (or at least

those that scholars attribute to them) it appears equally important that the acts of networking also

add process and product value, and help managers and professionals as well as the agencies in

which they work. Thus, for the network as a whole, a whole series of “other” values can be

added to those of policy-serving.

THERE ARE BENEFITS BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS?

Although networks provide tremendous interoganizational and intergovernmental

potential they do not come without negative forces that deter from agency and management

29

energy and outcomes, let alone collaborated results. These forms ultimately detract from public

value. While the costs of networking are not a major focus of this paper, some identification of

their “downsides” mentioned by the administrators and specialists allows some measure of

realism, for costs always have to be weighed against benefits. Six categories of concern proved

to be real: time and opportunity costs lost; those from protracted processing based on non-

hierarchical multi-organization multi-cultural human relations processes; the exercise of

organizational power or the withdrawal of it; gravitation toward consensus-based risk-aversive

agendas; resource “hoarding” within agencies; and, policy barriers that frustrate collaboration.

Under the assumption that every administrative hour spent on interorganizational

collaboration is an hour away from internal management, at some point accumulated times take

their toll. Managers who are not full-time boundary spanners estimated that from ten to twenty

percent of their time is taken in working across organizations. Most of this is in formal networks

and/or interagency committees and taskforces. What must be understood is that the formal

meetings of the networks and their operating committees take a very small proportion of this

time, monthly or quarterly, at best a two to four hour commitment. It is in the project work of

the networks that take the time commitments. For example, SCEIG in Ohio may tie up 20-30

hours of time by participants from each of three funding agencies, two university technical

experts, and two program directors to help one small community solve its water problems. In an

average year, from twelve to fifteen of these community level projects are undertaken. One or

two of these persons would ordinarily be helping the community anyway, but since no single

agency can solve the problem many more persons are involved. A minimum of 120 person

hours could be devoted to a single small town effort. This is not a unique example. The Iowa

Enterprise network has devoted up to 200 person hours putting together business start-up

30

packages, including the time of federal and state government administrators, to help launch and

maintain a single micro-enterprise. Likewise the Iowa Geographic Information Council may

devote a total of five to seven person-days by its activists to helping a single local government

become multiple source GIS users. The Indiana Rural Development Council has a community

visitation committee of 10-12 persons that devotes two donated working days to six different

small towns each year. Obviously these are not insignificant time and expertise expenditures.

While the administrators are contributing their time and expertise to enhance collaborative

solutions that is time away from the home agency.

The costs associated with the human relations processes of networks are real as well.

Single organizations clearly have to account for the efforts devoted to process that leads to

production or result. But they have the advantage of hierarchy and its concomitant authority to

ultimately decide and move things along. Networks do not. Similar human relations or group

processes unfold but mutuality is even more valued. Networks are multicultural, in that different

agency/organization traditions and practices need to be recognized and worked through, and

sometimes around. Respect for the other is not only highly valued, but is essential to ultimately

get an organization representative to move toward agreement. Trust, an essential ingredient in

network processing, takes lots of time and experience to build up. Consensus, the only way that

agreement or decisions can be made, does not come easy. One of the most visible efforts of the

Partnership for Rural Nebraska is its annual capacity-building two and one half day Rural

Institute. Planning this event begins before the last one has unfolded, involves the major

partners, an ongoing Education Committee, an allied network, and a local host committee. Each

program element requires a complex overlay of processes and mutual agreements that combine

political, technical, and pedagogical considerations. The result is generally satisfying to

31

stakeholders but involves human relations energy (and more time costs) that far exceeds

anything that would resemble a training program in a single organization. Exhaustive human

relations processing is part of the price that most networks pay for collaborated results (Agranoff

2003a).

Decision by consensus can drive networks toward risk-aversive agendas. This concern

was suggested earlier in regard to informational networks like the watershed networks that have

multiple, conflicting stakeholders. The Darby Partnership almost fell apart in the late 1990s

because one of its lead partners, the Nature Conservancy of Ohio, was in support of a Wildlife

Refuge bill before the U.S. Congress that included parts of the Darby Creek Watershed. Many

local government and landowner residents saw land “takings” as a next step. The issue was so

volatile the Partnership could not proceed until it was removed from the agenda and a “cooling

off” period was put in place. Many discussants in informational and developmental networks

mentioned their frustration that they continually avoided the tough issues. For example, the

Indiana Economic Development Council, which is primarily designed to provide strategic

economic planning for the state, has conducted numerous externally funded studies on the

problems that have led to Indiana’s manufacturing jobs decline, but its seventy-two member

bipartisan, business-labor, state government board has avoided key positions on education,

technical training, workforce restructuring, technology enhancement, and venture capital

funding. Indeed, while the state government made some initial policy decisions in promoting

high-tech manufacturing in 2003, the Council has been silent on the policy choices to make this

happen. It tends to take safer positions like announcing that Indiana has lost a given number of

manufacturing jobs or supporting computer literacy programs in the high schools and vocational-

technical schools. Clearly, networks pay one price for holding together its partners, keeping off

32

the agenda issues that are threatening or contrary to consensus building. Like Darby and the

Indiana Council, the problem is that the very purpose for the formation of the network is often to

deal with those most difficult issues that no single agency can tackle.

Lurking behind consensus is the often hidden reality of power within the network, and its

exercise can detract from collaborative potential. While networks are often characterized as

coequal, interdependent, patterned relationships (Klijn 1996), resource differentials and

dependencies would suggest power differentials (Rhodes 1981). Clegg and Hardy (1996: 679)

indicate that behind the “façade of trust and the rhetoric of collaboration,” power is exercised by

stronger partners over weaker partners. In the DMMPO transportation agency, the clash of

power between the central city of Des Moines and the west suburbs is very real. As the major

population center of the metropolitan area, the core city’s interests are different and competing,

overshadowing the small towns, suburbs, and counties east of Des Moines. They have a

propensity to dominate the other partners, and that is why the elaborate policy decision-

procedures identified earlier have been put into place. EDARC in Indiana is comprised of ten

state agencies and several NGO and external representatives, but discussants referred to the

power of two state program heads, who exerted more control over the network processes than

even the state agency that generates around 90 percent of the funds that fuel the entity.

Generally speaking, this power was identified as “benign,” that is used to advance the multiple

interests of accessIndiana, but unequal power is also exercised to advance the interests of the

powerful agencies. Raw power in many forms, e.g. withholding agreement, withholding

resources, exercising formal objection (i.e. veto), or temporary withdrawal from a collaborated

result are forces that must be accounted for.

33

While the interdependent nature of most networks implies some form of resource sharing,

the other face of interdependence includes “resource hoarding,” that is, the failure to contribute

needed resources to the collaborated enterprise. These held resources could include withholding

of contributed time, denial of access to an agency’s programs or services, refusal to make

financial allocations or contributions, non-supply of information or technology, or holding back

political and organizational support. For example, when IGIC began as a state government

chartered network the project was prominently housed and supported in the Office of the Chief

Information Officer (CIO) in the Iowa Department of Administration. Indeed, the CIO was

designated as the state’s GIS coordinator. After a change in personnel, IGIC was deprived of

front-line state government support. It was not only cut loose from the CIO, but also funds,

technical support, and knowledge diffusion functions were put in jeopardy. The new CIO would

not serve as state coordinator. Although a new home was subsequently found at Iowa State

University-Extension, key resources remain withheld from IGIC. While less dramatic than the

IGIC example, some agencies only provide the most limited of their expertise, personnel, funds,

or access to agency services. Each time this happens, the remaining representatives of the

network either have to dig deeper into their own resource pools, try to evoke a change of heart,

find new alternative resources, or go without critical support. Holding resources makes

collaborated results difficult, and in some cases impossible.

A final cost of networking is the deleterious effects that arise when participants run up

against policy barriers. While some networks exist to approach new solutions to policy

problems, or to forge ad hoc adjustments to nettlesome problems through multi-agency solutions

(Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan 1997: 1), they sometimes hit brick walls. For example, a huge

policy barrier exits for the Indiana Governor’s Commission on Home and Community Based

34

Services. It is designed to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, requiring

state governments to provide community services for all of those institutionalized handicapped

individuals who are clinically ready for and choose to be discharged. The Indiana “Olmstead”

network is wrestling with a huge obstacle to the facilitation of community services: allowing

Medicaid to finance personal assistance as a service. Such a change will help move many

prospective dischargees off waiting lists, out of institutional settings and in the community. This

core change in policy is completely out of the network or any participating agency’s - Medicaid,

Developmental Disabilities, or any other - hands. It would require revision of Indiana’s state

Medicaid plan by state legislative action, an unlikely prospect since the General Assembly “flat

lined” Medicaid in 2003, in effect reducing spending. It is clear that the personal assistance issue

is not a particularly unusual example of a barrier to networks ability to engender policy

accommodation. In a different way, rural development policy decisions most often preclude

state rural development councils. State development departments, governor’s offices and state

legislatures feel they are state policy makers and when the councils were set up it was clear that

their policy roles were generally circumscribed. They were ignored or substantially reduced in

scope of work (Radin et. al. 1996). These policy barriers happen most often when key decisions

are considered to be external to the networks scope of authority, or are considered internal to an

agency that cannot effectuate such changes. Therefore, just as the ability to make program

changes that amount to policy adjustments can facilitate the work of networks, the inability to

break policy barriers can detract from their value-adding ability.

One commonly identified negative force, turf or organization domain protection of line

administrators (Thomas 2003; Bardach 1998), proved not to be articulated as a main-line

problem by discussants in the field. Perhaps turf proved not to be as real because the participant

35

administrators were all in ongoing and reasonably successful networks and perhaps these

concerns had long been passed over. It is also possible that administrators in these networks, in

order to be successful, had learned to work around the serious turf questions. It is also possible

that the most strident agency “boundary protectors” had previously opted out of these networks.

Whatever the reasons, turf protection was rarely mentioned as a cost or negative force in

networking.

CONCLUSION

Networks can play important roles in creating public value if they are understood for

what they do rather than for a set of abstract functions externally ascribed. Here we look at what

the public managers themselves tell us about what they do, and what it means. Contemporary

networks face rapidly paced social change, tackle nettlesome problems without neat technical

solutions (Agranoff and McGuire 2001a: 319), and deal with wicked problems O’Toole (1997).

For most of the problems that emerged in the twentieth century, a bureaucratic organizations was

ideal, because problems were easily defined, goals were clear, and objectives were measurable.

Networks are better suited to tackle wicked problems, with more venues of decision and more

stakeholders. “Multiple parties means multiple alternatives to suggest and consider, more

information available for all to use, and a decision system that is less bound by the frailties of

individual thinking” (Agranoff and McGuire 2001a: 321). The key is synergy, which rides on

the commitment and interaction of the participants’ stimulating new alternatives. If successful,

networks can contribute to public performance, for the administrator, his/her organization, for

the public process of collaboration, and for achieving collaborated results.

36

In these ways the value-adding force of networks connect policies or design and operate

interactive machinery. Information networks never do, and developmental networks jointly

work towards creating opportunity and capability for their component actors to take forms of

linked action, and outreach networks go a step further and interactively establish strategic or

joint policy/joint operational avenues that agencies and clients can follow. These networks

exchange and thereby increase the amount of information that participants posses so that such

information can be used for subsequent linkages and collaboration. They also explore extant

technologies, disseminate their potential use for problem resolution, both individually and in

collaborative linkages. They use synergy to create new technological solutions that assist linked

approaches. They jointly build the capabilities of their participants to understand problems and

reach solutions in a synergistic fashion. Some do not make policies and take action, but establish

strategic frameworks for such policies and actions, to be taken by the agencies. Finally, a few

actually adopt the multi agency policies and programs identified in the public sector network

literature, normally to be implemented by the agencies themselves. When the costs can be

overcome, all of these actions add value and contribute to public performance, otherwise it is

doubtful that heavily committed administrators and officials would maintain their continuing

presence in these collectives.

37

FIGURE 1: An Accounting of the Value-Adding Functions of Networks

1. Administrators/Specialists 2. Participating Organizations 3. Interagency/InterorganizationalProcesses

4. Interagency/InterorganizationalOutcomes

Broadened external contacts

Enhanced boundary spanning

Increased technologicalawareness

Facilitated communication

In-depth technical knowledge

Improved management throughcollaborated adjustment

Enhanced professional practicethrough knowledgecooperation

Technical program informationexpansion

Increased collaborativecapacities

Technology awareness

Knowledge of other agency’sactions

Regularized interagency/inter-organizational communication

Cross-training

Access to staff and resources ofother agencies

Enhanced data access/exchange

New tools for meeting internalproblems

Knowledge of grant/fundingopportunities

Boundary adjustments withagencies/organizations on asystematic basis

Access to service and programinnovations in other agencies

Access to flexible funding sources

Convening of stakeholders

Problem depth awareness

Technology awareness

Information exchange/technicalinformation flow

Mutual adjustment-trust

Identification of potential problemsolutions

Access to external expertise

Group learning

Cross-training and development

Comprehensive and strategicplanning

Knowledge application

Technology application

Knowledge/Technology creation

Resource exchanges

Facilitated solutions

Program interfaces

Policy applications to “places”

Interactive, cross-agency databases

Adapted technologies

Enhanced knowledge infrastructures

Reciprocal programming

Enhanced “governance” throughdata-driven area decisions

Program and service innovations fordifficult problems

38

APPENDIX A: NETWORKS UNDER INVESTIGATION

Name ofNetwork

Description andPurpose

Type Enabling Authority Primary Agencies

1. Access IndianaEnhanced DataAccess ReviewCommittee(EDARC)

Portal to Indiana Stategovernmentinformation; EDARCregulates AccessIndiana, supported by acontractor for webdevelopment; setspolicies for AccessIndiana reviews,modifies and approvesaudit agencyagreements, encouragespublic and private use,and establishes fees forenhanced access topubic records.

Action State Government Indiana State Library; IndianaDepartments of Administration,Bureau of Motor Vehicles,Secretary of State, IndianaCommission on Public Records,Indiana Commission for Highereducation; Chair, Indiana IntelnetCommission, Division ofInformation Technology, Office ofAttorney General, State BudgetAgency, and sixcitizen/NGO/mediarepresentatives.

2. Des MoinesAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(DMMPO)

Responsible fortransportation planningfor metropolitan areaunder §450 of Title 23of U.S. Code (TEA-21)through itsTransportationTechnical Committees.

Action IntergovernmentalAgreement

Thirteen cities, three countygovernment members, and twoassociate cities. Advisoryparticipants include IowaDepartment of Transportation,U.S. Federal HighwayAdministration, U.S. FederalTransit Authority, Des MoinesMetropolitan TransportationAuthority and Des MoinesInternational Airport.

3. IndianaEconomicDevelopmentCouncil (IEDC)

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

Informational Not-for-profit 501C(3) Seventy-two member Board ofDirectors from state government,universities, private sector,business and labor interest groups,and NGOs. Chaired by theGovernor. Lt. Governor is Chiefexecutive Officer of the Council(Note: in Indiana the Lt. Governoris head of the Department ofCommerce and is Commissionerof Agriculture).

4. Indiana RuralDevelopmentCouncil (IRDC)

IRDC provides a forumto address rural issues,seeks community inputto identify problems,establishes partnershipsto find solutions;enables partners to takeaction, and educates thepublic on rural issues.

Developmental IntergovernmentalAgreement/Not-for-profit 501C(3)

U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development, U.S. SmallBusiness Administration, U.S.Department of Agriculture/RuralDevelopment, IndianaCommissioner of Agriculture,Department of Health/RuralHealth, Indiana Department ofCommerce, four local governmentelected officials, eight statelegislative and U.S. Congressionalstaff appointees, and four for-profit appointees.

39

5. IowaCommunicationsNetwork (ICN)

ICN is a statewide, stateadministered, fiberoptics network thatenables authorized userssuch as hospitals, stateand federal government,public defense armories,libraries, schools, andhigher education tocommunicate via highquality, full motionvideo, data, high-speedinternet communicationsand telephones.

Action State Government Iowa Telecommunications andTechnology Commission, IowaPublic Television, Iowa Departmentof Corrections, Iowa universities andcolleges, Iowa Department ofTransportation, U.S. Veteran’sAdministration, U.S. Social SecurityAdministration, public schools,public libraries, and others.

6. Iowa EnterpriseNetwork (IEN)

IEN supports home-basedand micro enterprisesprovides mutualassistance andinformation throughconferences, workshopsand web links.

Developmental Not-for-profit501C(3)

U.S. Small Business Administration,Iowa Department of EconomicDevelopment, Iowa RuralDevelopment Council, Iowa AreaDevelopment Group, SmallBusiness Development Center – DesMoines, U.S. Department ofAgriculture/Rural Development,Iowa Department of CulturalAffairs, and micro business owners.

7. Iowa GeographicInformationCouncil (IGIC)

Clearinghouse forcoordinated geographicinformation systems,data sharing, exploringstandards, andfacilitating cooperationamong Iowans who useGIS.

Developmental State Government Representatives on 25 member boardinclude university/private college,state government, planningorganizations, county governments,local governments, federalgovernment, private businesses, andcommunity colleges.

8. Lower PlatteRiver CorridorAlliance(LPRCA)

The Alliance fosters thedevelopment andimplementation oflocally drawn strategies,actions and practices toprotect and restore therivers sources; fostersincreased understandingof the Platte River’sresources; support localefforts to achievecomprehensive andcoordinated land use;promote cooperationamong local, state, andfederal organizations,private and public, tomeet the needs of themany and variedinterests of the corridor.

Informational Intergovernmental Agreement

Lower Platte South, Lower PlatteNorth and Papio—Missouri NaturalResources Districts, NebraskaDepartments of: Natural Resources,Health and Human Services,Environmental Quality, NebraskaState Military Department, andUniversity of NebraskaConservation and Survey Division.Ex-officio links with U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers and U.S.National Park Service.

40

9. Partnership forRural Nebraska(PRN)

A cooperativecommitment to addressrural opportunities andchallenges identified byrural Nebraskans; towork together to meetthose challenges andprovide resources andexpertise to enhancedevelopmentopportunities.

Developmental Intergovernmental Agreeement

State of Nebraska, Departments ofAgriculture, EconomicDevelopment, EnvironmentalQuality, Health and Human ServicesSystem, and the Rural DevelopmentCommission. Federal Government,USDA/RD, and Natural ResourcesConservation Services. TheUniversity of Nebraska. NebraskaDevelopment Network.

10. SmallCommunitiesEnvironmentalInfrastructureGroup(SCEIG)

Coordinated efforts toassist small governmentsin Ohio in theirdevelopment,improvement andmaintenance of theirwater and wastewatersystems.

Outreach Non-formal group State of Ohio Water DevelopmentAuthority, Ohio EnvironmentalProtection Agency, OhioDepartment of Natural Resources,U.S. Federal-State ExtensionService/Ohio State University, U.S.Department of Agriculture/RuralDevelopment, U.S. Department ofCommerce, Economic DevelopmentAdministration, private lendingrepresentatives, university ruralcenters, nongovernmentalorganizations, and regionaldevelopment districts.

11. The DarbyPartnership(Darby)

Facilitated by the NatureConservancy of Ohio, itsfederal, state and localagencies, environmentalgroups and watershedcitizens shareinformation andresources to addressstresses to the streamsand serve as a “thinktank” for conservationefforts in the watershed.

Informational Non formal group U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources ConservationService, Ohio Department of NaturalResources, Ohio EnvironmentalProtection Agency, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, six county Soil and WaterConservation Districts, City ofColumbus, Columbus and FranklinCounty Metro Parks, Mid-OhioRegional Planning Commission, TheNature Conservancy, The DarbyCreek Association and severalNGOs.

12. United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture/

RuralDevelopmentNebraskaOutreachPrograms(USDA/RD)

U.S./RD in Nebraska usesoutreach to leveragefunds of other programsto augment its funding aswell as assisting ruralcooperatives, valueadding businesses, smallmunicipal water systems,public facilities andhousing for smallcommunities.

Outreach FederalGovernment

USDA/RD, Partnership for RuralNebraska, Nebraska Department ofEconomic Development, NebraskaRural Development Commission,Nebraska Development Network,University of Nebraska – Extension,Development Districts, Nebraskacolleges, and county and citygovernments.

41

13. KentuckianaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(KMPO)

Responsible fortransportation planningfor two-state Louisvillemetropolitan area under§450 of Title 23 of U. S.Code (TEA-21) throughits Transportation Policyand TechnicalCoordinatingCommittees.

Action Intergovernmental Agreement

Two Indiana county governments,three Kentucky county governments,city government elected officials,Indiana and Kentucky StateTransportation agencies, TransitAuthority of River City, RegionalAirport Authority, Federal HighwayAdministration, Federal TransitAdministration.

14. IndianaCommission onHome andCommunity-Based Services,TechnicalAdvisory Group(Olmstead-TAG)

Developing a strategy toimplement Federallyrequired non-institutional services forthe disabled based onpersonal choice

Outreach State Government Public members representing NGOs,citizen members, externalconsultants, U. S. Departments ofJustice and Health and HumanServices, State Departments (Familyand Social Services, Transportation,Commerce, Housing FinanceAuthority) State Budget Agency

42

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH METHOD

The study encompasses a grounded theory/field study that includes observation and

limited participation, guided discussions with principal network actors, and document analysis.

The latter includes extensive reviews of each networks’ annual reports, strategic plans, action

plans, major studies, legislation and executive orders, meeting minutes, conference programs,

and other published sources. For each network the discussions are conducted on-site in Ohio,

Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska, and Kentucky. Site visits are scheduled to coincide with

observation at regular network meetings and in several cases attendance at an annual conference.

Rather than interviews, guided discussions are employed, where discussants are asked to respond

to a standardized set of questions, but in conversational form. All discussants receive an email

copy of the study abstract in advance.

To date over 100 discussions have been held with each network staff coordinator and/or

chairperson/president, along with federal and state agency mangers and program heads, and in

most cases network activists from substate and local governments, nongovernmental

organizations and university researchers and program specialists. Because the study focuses on

management issues, priority is placed on public managers, particularly those who work both in

large bureaucratic organizations and in networks. A mixture of agency heads or state directors,

program managers, program specialists and agency liaison persons or “boundary spanners” is

included. This inevitably leads to a weighted or purposive sample that includes larger numbers

of federal and state officials who are managers, along with network chairs and coordinators. The

topic under study seems to justify this approach, because the focus is not on the structure and

operations of the networks themselves, but on how managers from agencies manage in networks.

43

As a result, some very important network contributors no doubt are missed. Their slighting is

totally a function of topic.

The use of mixed methods allowed for a richer and deeper understanding of a murky

arena; part of that twenty percent of public managers’ time that is spent crossing organizational

lines to do their jobs. Discussants have a chance to reflect on the presubmitted study abstract and

to answer in their own words. Face-to-face allows the researcher to read more stimuli, i.e.

nonverbal expressions, and to get instant clarification of any point made. Also, additional but

valuable information not on the discussion guide is usually added, including political and

administrative tactics that are never offered in a closed-ended questionnaire response. Often the

information is sufficiently sensitive to “drop the pen.” The discussions are also the time to find

out who really “carries” the network by their knowledge and efforts, and if unequal power is a

relevant factor within the network, it is likely to come out during some discussions. Meanwhile,

the scientific documentation and information produced by the networks allows for a clearer

understanding about how research and technology are interlinked with interagency possibilities

and ultimately action. Indeed, it allows for an understanding of how information is as essential

as interaction. Finally, the observation opportunities while uneven helps to understand

relationships between the formal and informal, but also to see how networkers both give and

receive valuable information and knowledge. It also provides a level of personal contact with

many actors beyond the scheduled discussion in a considerably more informal and personal way.

Together the three types of data gathering allow for a more holistic picture of these semi-

amorphous networks.

44

REFERENCES

Agranoff, Robert. 2003a. Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working AcrossOrganizations. Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.

____________. 2003b. “Is Managing Within Intergovernmental Networks Changing theBoundaries of Government? A Preliminary Report,” paper presented at Second AnnualFounders Forum, American Society for Public Administration, Washington, D.C., March.

Agranoff, Robert and Michael McGuire. 2000. “The Administration of State Government RuralDevelopment Policy” in John J. Gargan (ed.) Handbook of State Government administration.New York: Marcel Dekker.

____________. 2001a. “Big Questions in Public Network Management Research” Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory 11(July): 295-326.

____________. 2001b. “American Federalism and the Search for Models of Management”Public Administration Review 61(6): 671-681.

____________. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for LocalGovernments. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Alter, Catherine and Jerald Hage. 1993. Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park, CA:SAGE.

Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting Agencies to Work Together. Washington, D.C.: BrookingsInstitute Press.

Behn, Robert D. 2001. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, D.C. BrookingsInstitution Press.

Clegg, Stewart R. 1990. Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World.London: SAGE.

Clegg, Stewart R. and Cynthia Hardy. 1996. “Conclusions: Representation” in Stewart R. Clegg,Cynthia Hardy and Walter R. Nord (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE.

Dundon, Elaine. 2002. The Seeds of Innovation: Cultivating the Synergy That FostersInnovation, New York: AMACOM.

Franz, Roger and Alex N. Pattakos. 1996. “Economic Growth and Evolution: The IntuitiveConnection,” in Roger Franz and Alex N. Pattakos (eds.), Intuition at Work. San Francisco: NewLeaders Press.

Harmon, Michael M. and Richard T. Mayer. 1986. Organization Theory for PublicAdministration. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

45

Harrison, Bennett and Weiss Marcus. 1998. Workforce Development Networks. Thousand Oaks,CA: SAGE.

Honadle, Beth Walter. 1981. “A Capacity-Building Framework: A Search for Concept andPurpose” Public Administration Review 41: 575-580.

Kickert, Walter J. M. and Joop F. M. Koppenjan. 1997. “Public Management and NetworkManagement: An Overview,” in Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M.Koppenjan (eds.) Managing Complex Networks. London: SAGE.

Kickert, Walter J. M., Erik Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M. Koppenjan. 1997. “Introduction: AManagement Perspective on Policy Networks” in Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik Hans Klijn, and JoopF. M. Koppenjan (eds.) Managing Complex Networks. London: SAGE.

Klijn, Erik-Hans. 1996. “Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks,”Administration and Society 28: 90-119.

_____________. 2003. “Networks and Governance: A Perspective on Public Policy and PublicAdministration,” in Ari Salminen (ed.), Governing Networks. Amsterdam: IUS Press.

Klijn, Erik-Hans and Joop F. M. Koppenjan. 2000. “Public Management and Policy Networks:Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance,” Public Management 2(2):135-158.

Kooiman, Jan (ed.). 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London:SAGE.

Linden, Russell M. 2003. Working Across Boundaries: Making Collaboration Work inGovernment and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lipnack, Jessica and Jeffrey Stamps. 1994. The Age of the Network. New York: Wiley.

McGuire, Michael. 2002. “Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and WhyThey Do It” Public Administration Review 62(5): 426-433.

Moore, Mark H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

O’Toole, Laurence J. 1996. “Hollowing the Infrastructure: Revolving Loan Programs andNetwork Dynamics in the American States” Journal of Public Administration Research Theory6: 225-242.

46

O’Toole, Laurence J. 1997. “Treating networks Seriously: Practical and Research-BasedAgendas in Public Administration” Public Administration Review 57: 45-52.

Pattakos, Alex N. and Elaine Dundon. 2003. “Cultivating Innovation in Government: Oxymoronor Core Competency?” Canadian Government Executive X(3): 14-16.

Perrow, Charles. 1992. “Small Firm Networks,” in Nitin Nohria and Robert G. Eccles (eds.)Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Powell, Walter W. 1990. “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy Network Forms of Organization”Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295-336.

Provan, Keith G. and H. Brinton Milward. 1991. “Institutional-Level Norms and OrganizationalInvolvement in a Service-Implementation Network,” Journal of Public Administration Researchand Theory 1: 319-417.

_____________. 1995. “A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness”Administrative Science Quarterly 40(1): 1-33.

Radin, Beryl. 2000. “Intergovernmental Relationships and the Federal Performance Movement,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism 30: (1-2Winter/Spring): 143-158.

Radin, Beryl A., Robert Agranoff, Ann O’M. Bowman, Gregory C. Buntz, Steven J. Ott, BarbaraS. Romzek, and Robert H. Wilson. 1996. New Governance for Rural America: CreatingIntergovernmetnal Partnerships. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Rhodes, R. A. W. 1981.Control and Power in Central-Local Relations. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

Thomas, Craig W. 2003. Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and thePreservation of Biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weiner, Myron E. 1990. Human Services Management, 2 ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.