About Networks

Back we go to the series of posts on organic systems…
Not surprisingly as we move closer to a network structure, we will not only find ourselves closer to the structures of the NT people of God but also more aligned around the dynamics of Apostolic Genius. It is therefore critical to explore the nature and forms of networks. In doing so, we need to realize that this is closer to our truest expression of ecclesia, even though it might at first seem somewhat strange to us at first. In doing this we must realize that we explore things that relate not just to issues of reactivating missional church, but to much of what we experience in God’s world. Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, the guru of network thinking says it this way..

Network thinking is poised to invade all domains of human activity and most fields of human inquiry. It is more than another useful perspective or tool. Networks are by their very nature the fabric of most complex systems, and nodes and links deeply infuse all strategies aimed at approaching our interlocked universe.”

In the literature networks come in basically three types :

According to Arquilla and Ronfeldt

Each node in the diagrams may refer to either an individual, a group, an organization, part of a group or organization, or even a nation-state. The nodes may be large or small, tightly or loosely coupled, and inclusive or exclusive in membership. They may look alike and engage in similar activities, or they may undertake a division of labor based on specialization. The boundaries of the network, or of any node included in it, may be well-defined, or they may be blurred and porous in relation to the outside environment. Many variations are possible.

It might be clear to see that of the three network types, why the all-channel form has traditionally been the most difficult to organize and sustain. This is so partly because it requires lots of communication. But it is this precisely this form of network that maximizes potential for collaborative undertakings without centralized organization. And this all-channel form is gaining new strength and legitimacy from the information revolution—for instance in open source programming and online business and networking. In networks of this kind, the organizational system generally tends to be flat (as opposed to hierarchical.) Also, in its purer form, there is no single, central leadership, command, or headquarters—no precise heart or head that can readily be identified. “The network as a whole (but not necessarily each node) has little or no hierarchy; there may be multiple leaders. Decision-making and operations are decentralized, allowing for local initiative and autonomy. Thus the design may sometimes appear headless and at other times many-headed.” The structure will tend to be comprised of small units or cells. However, the presence of “cells” does not necessarily mean a network exists—a hierarchy can also be made up of cell, as is the case with most churches with an active cell group program.. It is the way in which the cells organize and relate that makes them a network.

We’ll take this further next post.

August 27, 2008 | Filed Under organic systems, the forgotten ways |  

Comments

7 Responses to “About Networks”

  1. Janet on August 29th, 2008 8:47 pm

    This post reminds me of the power of the Internet… even the remarkable “Wikipedia”… a truly collaborative work (I notice you have an entry in Wikipedia Alan, so you must be REALLY famous!!!!)

    This idea just isn’t foreign to us… it’s just that we haven’t imagined ecclesia structured in this way.

  2. Eric on August 30th, 2008 12:34 am

    Yep, reminds me of The Starfish and the Spider (which mentions Wikipedia and the internet itself), which I’m sure you’ve mentioned before, either previously here or it’s in the book and going to come up here in the next post.

    I read Starfish & Spider a few months ago and it encouraged me to press on with creating an online tool which might help share intelligence around various parts of the Church. And I know I’m not the only one.

  3. Michael McAleer on August 30th, 2008 1:42 am

    I like Barbasi in general though I do not think he takes some of Complex adaptive systems theory seriously enough. What he is great in is describing how networks actually function. (He is the btw that did the experiment tracing people’s cell phone usage announced a couple of months back.) I agree with Alan that the “all channel” communication route is the way to go albeit more complicated in a sense to start. Organic growth demands that kind of org chart! If you can even call it that. Eric, I would be very interested in hearing more about your idea.

  4. Dion on August 30th, 2008 1:44 pm

    I agree with the “all channel” network being the most effective as well as the most difficult. We are finding out all about this right now in our house church network. We look more like the star/hub network but are working toward all channel. Is it possible to move from “hub” to “all channel”? With the hub DNA, we seem prone to reproduce hubs. But, I’ve been wondering if we are destined to stay as hubs or if we will ever change to “all channel” and how that can happen.

  5. Eric on August 30th, 2008 9:15 pm

    Michael: my thingy’s nothing great, but I have over half the schools and churches in my state in a database, plotted on a map, with the ability to attach info to them. Working towards a “who’s doing what in schools ministry” sort of map. Probably will amount to little but worth a punt. Email me (follow my link) if you want to see it.

  6. Lucy J on September 2nd, 2008 5:15 pm

    I’d have to agree with the previous post-ers about the all channel modus operandi requiring the most communication. Although I haven’t read the “marine and arachnid” publications, I do identify with the issues very closely. In fact, I am somewhat taken aback that the diagram that I believe came to me while I was praying for a leadership structure to take an organisation into its next era was almost exactly the same as the all channel/full-matrix network referred to in this discussion! I saw it with God at the centre, ideally through which all communication through, with and amongst each other, channelled. Three of the hubs/nodes were a Co-ordinator and his/her contextualised support and communications team (unique to each individual’s situation), and the other nodes were networks and perhaps ‘sub-networks’, but all interconnected and regularly reminded of the organisation’s purpose and vision through many different communication methods including personal contact, organisational gatherings/events, print and cyber media. Some colleagues and I (who probably constituted a hub), felt very strongly about decentralisation of power and the autonomy of the various operational facets of the organisation. We wanted to make sure that this kind of approach was kept alive in the Constitution (foundational document) and organisational operational procedures. We realised that relevant and effective communication was essential. Sometimes, we felt that the communication required for an interdenominational, international creative arts networking organisation was very ‘dense’ in more ways than one! This also seems to reflect some of Castell’s and Hock’s thoughts, respectively. I feel mightily encouraged that ordinary God-loving, God-serving and prayerful folks can be inspired with the kinds of extra-ordinary ideas that much brighter minds are exploring, expositing and cyber-posting.
    Lucy J

  7. Tim C on September 2nd, 2008 8:21 pm

    I think most apostolic activity will begin as a hub. After all, the apostle is the oine ushering in the new DNA of the gospel. How to make the transition over to “all channel” is the golden question. I do think having the all channel DNA is over half ther battle. Especially if it is there from the beginning.

Leave a Reply




Comment spam protected by SpamBam

Copyright © 2008 The Forgotten Ways • Linear WordPress Theme • Powered by WordPress • Maintained by Noble Design