Networks - a briefing paper for the Health Foundation - Centre for ...

investments’. (Mendizabal, 2008: n.p). An Inter-Agency Network for Education inEmergencies (INEE) case study (Mendizabal and Hearn, 2011) explored whether thenetwork structure as opposed to individual participant members or certain network projects oractivities was responsible for creating value that in turn meets the network’s objectives.Drawing upon the theory of value by Allee (2002), who argued that value was tangible orintangible, Mendizabal and Hearn noted how a variety of actors supplement and sociallyconstruct the networks by adding novel value, re-distributing value between participantmembers, or by converting one form of value into another. In this respect, mere engagementis not a recipe for success, regardless of whether it in itself defines the network. The criticalissue is related to how the relations that form the network infrastructure are responsible forcreating and adding value. Mendizabal and Hearn (Mendizabal and Hearn, 2011)subsequently propose the value network analysis (VNA) model, within which a network isseen in terms of value creation and exchange among the networks actors. The VNAproposes:1. Exchange analysis: What is the overall pattern of exchanges in the system?2. Impact analysis: What impact does each value input have on the participatingmembers of the system?3. Value creation analysis: What is the best way to create, extend, and leverage value,either through adding value, extending value to other participants, or converting onetype of value into another? (Mendizabal and Hearn, 2011: p.20)The potency of each VNA approach enables the observer to identify how the networkfunctions approach could be enhanced: ‘by a better understanding of the members of thesystem (through [social network analysis/SNA), and how their interactions may or may notcreate value (through VNA). This will allow us to conclude whether the evolution of INEE hasled to the development of the most appropriate network structure for the fulfilment of itsfunctions and roles’ (ibid).3.3.1 Evaluating Policy and Public Management NetworksFrom a policy networks perspective, (Provan and Milward, 2001) argue that networks shouldbe evaluated across three overlapping levels: community, network andorganization/individual. Each element contains a distinctive level of effectiveness criteria ofinterest to three types of network constituents: principals, agents and clients. The corecriteria of effectiveness relates to the gratification of groups that represent an array ofcommunity interests (e.g. advocacy groups). In such cases, effectiveness: ‘depend[s] onwhat specific service providers either do or do not do, rather than how well services areprovided as a result of network activities’ (Provan and Milward, 2001: p.422). It thus impactsupon community and network-level decisions made at the ‘expense of network participants’(Ibid). Public management networks (PMNs) are effectively collaborative endeavours on apar with social networks because they consist of participant members and representatives indisparate organisations, however they differ by moving ‘...beyond analytical modes. They arereal-world public entities’ (Agranoff, 2006: p.56). Saxton (1997) notes how public-sectornetworks are different from those in the for-profit world, where the financial feats of memberfirms is often the most practicable method for assessing network effectiveness (Provan andMilward, 2001). Research findings from Agranoff’s (2006) study of 14 North American publicsector networks find that regardless of notions of a network culture and network society (alsosee Castells, 1996, Castells, 1997, Stalder, 2006), hierarchies remain dominant and continue41