Network Dynamics and Network Effectiveness: A Methodological Framework for Public Sector Networks in the Field of National Security

Abstract

The network form of organisation is becoming increasingly important across many areas of public administration, but most analysts would agree that not enough is known about networks. This article is based on a detailed qualitative study of public sector networks in the field of national security in Australia. It reviews the dynamics and effectiveness of networks as organisational forms in this important field. A methodological framework involving five interdependent levels of analysis-structure, culture, policy, technology and relationships-is put forward to account for the internal dynamics of networks and the conditions that promote their effectiveness. The article concludes with recommendations for analysing networks in ways that can assist with the important task of network management.

Surveillance, security and sporting mega events: toward a research agenda on the organisation of security networks

“…The concept of 'network' has been used to call attention to the relationships between agents involved in policing and security. Although some have used the term loosely in relation to 'surveillance networks' (Lippert and O'Connor 2006), most have focused on 'security networks' (Brodeur and Dupont 2008;Dupont 2004Dupont , 2006Gill 2006;Whelan 2006, 2014;Whelan 2011Whelan , 2012. For example, Dupont (2004) distinguishes between different ideal-types of security networks, showing how they apply at the local through to the international levels.…”

“…They might also apply to the surveillance systems collecting and managing data on individuals and relaying that data to various security agents (Monahan 2010). However, when security networks are viewed as a principle of organising, institutional and virtual or technological networks should be considered components of the broader security networks (Whelan 2011). For example, in the case of London 2012, the National Olympic Coordination Centre had access to video surveillance systems and the operational capacity to control how that surveillance data was used.…”

Collaborative Governance: The Coordination of Governance Networks

“…In addition to the contractual aspect, there is procedural governance, which includes the various processes and instruments by which the network's day-to-day operations are managed. Among those discussed in the literature, several are high-lighted here: the process establishing how communication occurs aims to provide informational symmetry, restricting opportunistic behavior (BRYSON et al, 2006;THOMSON and PERRY, 2006;SCHEREIN-ER et al, 2009;WHELAN, 2011); management of the conflicts that occur in any network composed of multiple actors with different world views and different cultures (BRYSON et al, 2006;THOMSON and PERRY, 2006;WHELAN, 2011); the evolution of objectives, which may have coincided when the network was established but may require renegotiation as the network matures and the context changes (KALE, 2006;KOPPENJAN, 2008;MANDELL and KEAST, 2008;KLIJN and KOPPENJAN, 2009;MCGUIRE and SILVIA, 2009;KU-MAR, 2014); and the decision-making process, which may not require unanimity but should favor consensus and balance in the exercise of authority, as the actors have different degrees of power and status (AGRA-NOFF, 2006;EMERSON et al, 2012); in this sense, it should favor balance and seek to establish horizontal relationships among the partners (PROVAN and KENIS, 2005). Based on these aspects, an important element that warrants observation is the leadership process.…”

“…They are also responsible for establishing the network's legitimacy, both internally with their partners and externally with society (BRYSON et al, 2006). It is therefore necessary to differentiate among the network leader (who is responsible for creating an environment in which collaboration flourishes), the network manager/coordinator (who is in charge of the operation of the various processes), and the network's legal representatives, politicians, or sponsors (who support and sometimes lay the groundwork for its existence and who, despite having the power to impose decisions, refrain from doing so, in recognition of the importance and power of solutions arrived at jointly among partners) (FELDMAN and KHADEMIAN, 2002;THOMSON and PER-RY, 2006;WEBER and KHADEMIAN, 2008;WHELAN, 2011;SHEPHERD and MEE-HAN, 2012). The leader can take on different functions but must be able to differentiate among the roles to be played in each.…”

The Information-Based View on Business Network Performance: Revealing the Performance of Interorganizational Networks

“…and Windeler, 1998;Morgan, 2004;Provan and Kenis, 2009;Whelan, 2011). Insights from such studies are used elsewhere in this dissertation.…”