susana – strategy study, task 4 options for organisation structures
DESCRIPTION
SuSanA – Strategy study, Task 4 Options for organisation structures. Wolfgang Pfefferkorn, 16 April 2013 Input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.42013. Task 4: work process. Four parts: 1.Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA 2.Interviews - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 1
SuSanA – Strategy study, Task 4Options fororganisation structures
Wolfgang Pfefferkorn, 16 April 2013Input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.42013
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 2
Task 4: work process
Four parts:
1. Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA2. Interviews3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 3
Guiding questions:
• Who are the most relevant players influencing SuSanA?
• How intense and of which quality is the relationship between these players and SuSanA?
• How are the relationships among these players?
-> 6 Drawings
System environment analysis
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 4
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 5
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 6
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 7
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 8
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 9
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 10
• The most relevant institutions with the highest influence on SuSanA:
• GIZ, SEI and EAWAG, then IWA, further:
• Unesco, Unicef, UN-Habitat and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, further (mentioned 2x)
• Seecon, GTO, PlanUSA, WELF, WTN, IRC, WSP, KFW, waste plan, Xavier University … (mentioned 1x)
• Positive relations dominating, no relevant conflicts
• Representation of the key players in SuSanA (core group): GIZ: 5; EAWAG: 3; SEI: 2; IWA: 1; Unicef: 2; Xavier University: 2
Findings and conclusions from the drawings
SuSanA system environment
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 11
Task 4: work process
Four parts:
1. Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA2. Interviews3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 12
Secretariat
• Well organised
• No clear mandate from the core group
• Less present than with former leading persons
• Maybe too much power, “runs the show”
Interviews with those who made the drawings (5)
Roles of the organisation units
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 13
Core group
• Influence has decreased over the last years
• Responsibility and tasks are unclear, terms of reference and agenda missing … has a lot to do with voluntary work
• For the members of the core group it is often unclear what is expected from them. Also for those who are externals, it is not clear what can be expected from the core group
• Only a few active members
Roles of the organisation units
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 14
Working groups
• Some active, some inactive and not very much committed – has to do with voluntary work
• Open participation is positive
• Working group leaders should play a more important role in the network
Roles of the organisation units
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 15
Core group <–> secretariat
• Works well
• Not clear, who is doing what in the core group
• Need for a better organisation of communication between the two units
Interfaces between units
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 16
• In general, SuSanA is a friendly network
• Some conflicts between core group and partners
• Maybe SuSanA was/is not open enough for people with other opinions and approaches
• Conflicts about external communication
• Some personal conflicts, not structural
• SuSanA is strongly based on values, it is a “circle”, still very much based on the ECOSAN technology approach
Frictions and conflicts
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 17
• There are no taboos
• The ECOSAN technology is a taboo
• But it is opening up to other integrated sanitation approaches
Taboos within SuSanA
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 18
• Better balance between north and south required
• Northern countries could play a stronger role in advocacy, southern countries in field work
• More commitment from organisations from the South would help to decentralise tasks and to increase the global relevance of the network
• Actors from the south should be more actively invited and encouraged to take over a stronger role. They should feel more welcome by the northern actors …
• Installing focal points or regional nodes would be very helpful and bring the network closer to regional realities
North / south
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 19
Positive:
• Clearer frameworks make work and communication easier
• Would lead to a clearer commitment
• Could help to decentralise certain tasks
• Some rules could help to make leadership clearer than today
• Becoming more formal than today would allow to improve advocacy work, to better approach regional governments
Change from a loose to a more binding network
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 20
Negative:
• Loss of liberty?
• Increases the barrier for new members and for exchange with other organisations (use of documents etc.)
• Annual fee, it would be a problem for many small organisations
• Financial issues become much more important, this possibly leads to rivalry and conflicts
• Risk of over-administration
• Open source idea could get lost
Change from a loose to a more binding network
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 21
Further comments:
• What SuSanA needs is mainly a clearer communication structure: who communicates when with whom about what?
• There are many individual SuSanA members. They have a high potential, which could be better used
• Regional sub-units of the network have been discussed several times, but nobody takes the lead and starts an initiative
• Regional sub-units could help to emphazise more on specific needs and topics in the different regions.
Change from a loose to a more binding network
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 22
• A core group, where all partners are represented
• More people and organisations play an active role
• Working groups are defined more precisely, are more active, working group leads have a more prominent role
• Two strong elements: 1. advocacy level with big players and strong presence on the international floor able to organise international funding; 2. field organisations with strong local roots. The link could be made by the working groups
• Working group leads should be present in the meetings of the core group.
If overnight a wonder would happen and the biggest wishes would come true, how would SuSanA be different? 1/3
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 23
• There are 2-3 co-financing organisations -> there are more resources in the secretariat and in other sub-units. SuSanA stands on a solid financial basis
• Other networks and CoP´s use SuSanA as a platform
• SuSanA has a speaker, a face
• Further partners come on board and join the network
• Sanitation sector recognises SuSanA more than today
• SuSanA becomes a network with more real-time cooperation (= more physical meetings)
If overnight a wonder would happen and the biggest wishes would come true, how would SuSanA be different? 2/3
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 24
• The regions from the South are better represented. The dominance of the North is reduced
• Some working groups are re-activated
• SuSanA continues to work on an open source base
• There are regular meetings among the working group leaders: once or twice per year, skype is sufficient
• There is more regular communication
If overnight a wonder would happen and the biggest wishes would come true, how would SuSanA be different? 3/3
Interview results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 25
• Non-hierarchical, open, voluntary
• High diversity
• Well organised
• Dedicated, interactive members
• High share of people ready to engage actively (content work in working groups, working group-lead AND strategic work in core group, strategy development
• Financial backup of secretariat from BMZ, support from BMGF
Strengths of the organisation structure of SuSanA
Survey results, SWOT update
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 26
• Hard to know, who is doing what
• Unbalanced geographic representation
• Reliance on volunteers, engagement often ineffective
• Informal, instable network relying on persons and relations
• Lack of funding structure and strategy
• Almost too international, too little local focus
• Rigid criteria for organisations-membership
• Very little number of active people
• Always the same people having the last word
Weaknesses of the organisation structure of SuSanA 1/2
Survey results, SWOT update
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 27
• Communication mechanisms not well defined
• Communication mainly based on web-based systems
• Little awaresness of SuSanA niche among members
Weaknesses of the organisation structure of SuSanA 2/2
Survey results, SWOT update
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 28
• Social media, crowd-sourcing
• Sustainable sanitation has become more important globally
Opportunities
SWOT update
Threats
• Only few members contribute financially
• Working group commitment depends on personal motivation because of voluntary work
• Not all members representated at meetings because of voluntary work
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 29
• Most relevant: contribution to policy dialogue
• Least relevant: catalyst – from commitment to action
• Wide range of topics identified as “hot topics”: technical solutions, capacity building, advocacy and lobbying
-> Consequences and requirements for organisational changes?
Future orientation of the network:
Survey results
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 30
Task 4: work process
Four parts:
1. Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA2. Interviews3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 31
Analysis of similar networks
Organisation charts of 10 networks:
(1) IWA – International Water Association(2) International Rainwater Harvesting Alliance (IRHA)(3) IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(4) International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities(5) The World Association of Non-Governmental Organi-
zations (WANGO)(6) InterPress Service – Journalism and Communication for
a global change (7) SCAN – Sustainable Commodity Assistance Network(8) GEF- NGO network (global network of civil society)(9) World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action(10)IPIECA – The global oil and gas industry association for
environmental and social issues
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 32
Standard organisation units
Analysis of similar networks
Unit Tasks
Member assembly Election of representatives
Steering group, co-ordination commit-tee
Definition of strategies, strategic decision making, election of executive committee and executive directors
Executive commit-tee, sometimes with board of directors
Day to day implementation and decision making
Secretariat Technical support of executive committee, services for other units and members
Regional sub-units (focal points)
Co-ordination of regional activities
Thematic sub-units (working groups, task forces)
Temporary working groups, which are thematically oriented and/or installed to carry out specific tasks (e.g. communication, management, events … )
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 33
Standard network / organisation structure
Survey results
Coordination committeeSteering group
Members
Executive committee(directors)
Regional sub-units(focal points)
Content orientedsub-units
(working groups)
Short termtask forces
SecretariatAdvisorygroup
consultancy,advice
technicalsupport
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 34
SuSanA network structure
Survey results
Individualmembers
Core group(31)
Secretariat
Working groups (11)
Partners
Partners
Partners
Partners
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 35
Standard network structure and SuSanA
Survey results
Coordination committeeSteering group
Members
Executive committee(directors)
Regional sub-units(focal points)
Content orientedsub-units
(working groups)
Short termtask forces
SecretariatAdvisorygroup
consultancy,advice
technicalsupport
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 36
Task 4: work process
Four parts:
1. Analysis of organisation structures of SuSanA2. Interviews3. Analysis of organisation structures of similar networks4. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 37
Observations from the comparison between the standard organisation structure and the SuSanA structure: 1/2
Conclusions, hypotheses
(1) SuSanA is much less structured
(2) Some units of a standard network chart do not exist in SuSanA: advisory group, regional sub units, task forces, and the most relevant one: the executive committee.
(3) As a consequence, the existing units (core group, secre-tariat) fulfil several tasks by mixing the functions of steering, decision making and day to day implementation. The SuSanA secretariat is much more than a unit providing technical support and services to the other units.
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 38
Observations from the comparison between the standard organisation structure and the SuSanA structure: 2/2
Conclusions, hypotheses
(4) The core group with its 31 members is mainly a steering group. For an executive committee, the core group is too big. As there is a relevant share of less active members in the core group, the active members are also in the role of an executive committee.
(5) The active members of the core group together with the secretariat fulfil the role of an executive committee. This obviously leads to a mixing of the strategic and the day to day levels as well as to a mixing of the functions of steering, decision making and support/implementation.
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 39
Strategic options for organisation structure
Conclusions, hypotheses
(1) Continue as before
(2) Major change towards high level of regulation and bindingness
(3) Soft change towards more regulation and bindingness. Low barriers at the external borders, increased level of regulation and structuring in the center
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 40
First recommendations based on steps 1-3:
Conclusions, hypotheses
(1) Keep barriers low at the external borders of the network (open source principle). Allow easy entry and membership in order to keep touch to the ground and to widen the network globally.
(2) Set clearer rules and enhance the level of bindingness in the center of the network.
(3) Better distinguish the roles of the inner network units, separate strategic decision making from day to day implementation. Maybe install a co-ordination unit and a executive unit. In the co-ordination unit, representative-ness of the network members is important.
(4) Re-define the place of core group and secretariat in the newly defined 3 units.
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 41
First recommendations based on steps 1-3:
Conclusions, hypotheses
(5) Define standard communication processes in the network as a starting point
(6) Strengthen the role of working group leaders – they could be an important link – maybe combined with stronger regional representativeness
(7) More structure could make it easier to decentralise, to widen the basis and the resources of the network
(8) Low external borders and more structure in the inner circle could support both directions: advocacy and locally based field organisations.
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 42
First recommendations based on steps 1-3:
Conclusions, hypotheses
(9) Higher level of bindingness and more structures and rules combined with strengthened advocacy orientation are not compatible with voluntary work in the long run-> additional financing required!
(10)Possible areas of conflict within the overall network: paid work in the center of the network (secretariat, executive committee), voluntary work at the borders (forum, content production …) … working group lead?
-> Requires a discussion process within the network in order to find the “right” solution.
April 2013 Task 4, Options for orgaisation structures, input to Eschborn meeting, 19.4.2013; Wolfgang Pfefferkorn 43
Contact:
Wolfgang Pfefferkorn
Rosinak & Partner, Vienna (A)
+43-544 07 07 / 37