Can the RSA become a truly networked nonprofit?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on June 27, 2012 at 17:42

Thanks Jemima - just refreshing the link to my post Collaborating towards a more fully networked RSA, which as you indicate generated some discussion. I there suggested an exploration leading to workshop, and you and others kindly offered assistance in the exploration. I'm in discussion with a major funder who runs a big community of practice on a Ning site, and who want to explore their way forward with others ... so we might get some collaboration.

The issue as I see it is how to develop a network-building strategy (and content strategy) before a technology strategy.

Currently we are missing the first two, so the tech tail will wag the Fellowship dog for ... is it third or fourth time?

I really do hope Candidate will be advocates for a more informed approach.

What do they think?

Permalink Reply by Matthew Kálmán Mezey on June 29, 2012 at 22:33

Great question Jemima :-)

I rather wish someone would write a UK version of 'The Networked Nonprofit' too...!

Interesting and challenging point from David as well, that a network-building strategy (and content strategy) should come before a technology strategy.

Is that the approach that Wenger and others call for in 'Digital Habitats - stewarding technology for communities', I can't remember?

Perhaps one can argue that a very open CRM system, with no lock-in, is an urgently needed minimum, which will be flexible enough for whatever might be required by Fellows later (around networks, communities etc)?

Best wishes,

Matthew

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on June 29, 2012 at 22:56

Hi Matthew - thanks so much for joining us.
As you know, I'm a big online enthusiast, but Joyce Arram has some strong points over here in the London hustings http://rsalondon.hustingo.com/regional-chair-candidate/joyce-arram/
So I think a good challenge is, how do we develop an online-offline networked nonprofit?
What's the non-tech tools and approaches to blend in? Better meeting formats may be as important as CRM?
Going a bit analogue here:-)

Permalink Reply by John Elliott on July 3, 2012 at 23:18

 I agree with David about the priorities for networking. 36 years ago I founded the Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN) and it is still going strong as an international network of educational researchers and practitioners who share their substantive and methodological insights.The bonds that have sustained it stemmed from a common interest in developing and testing innovative pedagogies. This provided a strong content focus. There was also a strong vision of the network as an association for sharing information about practical experiments. Different nodes in the network - individuals and groups - had freedom to experiment and communicate with each other about their experiments without having to refer to a centre that controlled the flow of information to the periphery. The task of the central co-ordinating group was to facilitate free information flow and to create spaces for individuals and groups to identify and articulate common insights. The role of the technology strategy was to sustain the focus and the vision.

In the context of the RSA the FC should have an important role in ensuring that the development and use of digital technologies is disciplined by the thematic content that engages Fellows  and by a vision of networking  that promotes free information flow among them.   

Permalink Reply by Matthew Kálmán Mezey on July 4, 2012 at 10:29

Hi John,

> Different nodes in the network - individuals and groups - had freedom to experiment and communicate with each other about their experiments without having to refer to a centre that controlled the flow of information to the periphery. The task of the central co-ordinating group was to facilitate free information flow and to create spaces for individuals and groups to identify and articulate common insights

Thanks so much for sharing this inspiring vision of a very transparent, networked structure. That worked!

Are there any examples of large, historic organisations like the RSA learning to use this kind of approach?

Does any of CARN's approach connect to Chris Argyris' methods for encouraging organisations to shift from Model I (Unilateral control) to Model II (Mutual learning)?

Matthew

---

Matthew Kalman Mezey

(Online Community Manager)

 

RSA

Tel 020 7451 6825

 

www.thersa.org

A live dashboard webpage showing RSA online activity is here: http://bit.ly/onlineRSA

twitter.com/MatthewMezey

twitter.com/thersaorg

rsafellowship.com (online community)

Is there an ‘RSA Connector’ for your country yet?: http://bit.ly/RSAconnectors

 

 

Registered as a charity in England and Wales no. 212424 and in Scotland no. SC037784

---

Have you voted? Every vote counts. Elections are underway for Regional/National Chairs, Fellowship Council members and At-Large Council candidates which all Fellows have the opportunity to vote for.  Visit the Governance web pages for further information

---

 

 

Permalink Reply by Kathy seddon on July 12, 2012 at 17:31

Thank you Matthew - that made me refresh my memory about Argyris! A good summary at "theories of action, double loop learning and organisational learning" and much food for thought.  Looking at networks and communities of practice,there is a high degree of overlap at times. I was part of the CARN network and the shared purpose did create an effective community of practice.

In my blog post I highlighted a simplistic motivation model (happy to expand) that again highlights purpose.
"R.S.A. Reason Skills Action" This draws on dynamic motivation theories where the aim is to sustain a 'flow' of action'  This might be in line with John's thoughts below that purpose (reason) should discipline technology (skills).

Looking at "Networked non profit" (thank you Jemima) the belief is expressed that we should 'keep in mind that tools will come and go but strategy (purpose?) sustains organisations' 

In several of the current discussions there is a search for the purpose of the RSA. Several have been identified including the need to use social media to connect those with common interests - as well as to communicate and provide information from the 'centre'. The new council might well look at these purposes if it seeks to be a networked non profit.  

 

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on July 13, 2012 at 7:35

Very interesting discussion, and great to have such experience to draw on. I sense RSA is quite a challenging case.
In moving towards a more networked RSA, I believe there a prior question, raised elsewhere by John Oakley, of who OWNS the purpose and network development. Is it Trustees for the whole RSA .... or Fellowship Council for the Fellows?
Is the network/ing to achieve the higher purpose of 21st century enlightenment, and whatever that entails?
Or is it the sort of networking that Fellows want among themselves, defined mainly by their own very diverse interests?
In the past I have been attracted to the all-RSA Higher Purpose model, which Matthew Taylor has promoted as social innovation - doing good stuff "out there".
But while this is attractive for some - and focussed around Catalyst awards for example - I suspect it is a minority interest.
I think the Fellowship survey indicated a desire to find and connect with other Fellows in a much less structured way - or perhaps one that is in line with the model John describes..
The technology strategy is important because each model may require a different architecture, and different approaches to network building.
At the moment the strategy is proceeding without Fellows being clear about its purpose, or about ownership.
While there are Trustee and FC representatives on strategy board, I think it fair to say that in practice the direction is being set by staff and consultants, and details of the development are treated as confidential. (Please correct me if I am mistaken. No criticism intended of the excellent staff involved. It is just the way things are done).
This means that we may well end up with network systems that work for theRSA but not necessarily for RSAFellowship.
Should Fellowship Council own communication systems for Fellows? And if not, how will it determine strategy?