What makes a network successful?

I've been studying more and less successful networks to identify what works well. We discussed this topic at the recent St Albans AMED gathering. And these seem to be some of the characteristics:

It meets the wants and desires of participants/members
It attracts their energies - almost magnetically
It's emergent – the structure follows the ways people want to interact with each other
It's hosted – Someone (or some group) makes things happens, welcomes you, sorts out the location (real or virtual)
The host also creates a brand or feel, to which participants respond
There are meetings – specific, labelled, timed, purposeful interactions, with a practical agenda – to talk, learn, do
Minimal bureaucracy (including cost) to serve these needs without obstructing or dominating them
The structure must remain flexible, as needs evolve or change – eg size, external conditions, new purposes

To what extent does AMED match up?

What else are we doing that is working?

What could we do to make it work even better?

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The AMED Network to add comments!

Join The AMED Network

Comment by Paul Z Jackson on February 17, 2011 at 3:45: Almost a year since posting this, it seems AMED is evolving again. Pockets of success, such as the networking groups, eO+P and the energised council, sit alongside many members whose wants and desires are largely unknown.

Comment by Penny Walker on June 1, 2010 at 4:21: I'm not sure about the need for SMART goals - an informal learning network needs to have communication channels and for there to be sharing of experiences and reflections. Does the network need SMART goals, apart from those set by the people organising the communication opportunities?