Healthy networks don’t happen by accident. They are intentionally designed ecosystems that evolve through clear goals, purposeful structure, and a relentless focus on relationships. Drawing on ten key topics from VNL’s Insights Library, below are condensed lessons you can apply today—whether you’re launching a new partnership or refitting a long-running coalition.
Table of Contents
1 | Start With a Shared Picture of Success
Researchers consistently warn that coalitions stall when members hold different definitions of “success.” Some celebrate lively meetings; others care only about measurable community outcomes. Begin by asking members how they would judge:
- A single meeting’s success (Was it productive? Inclusive? Energizing?)
- Annual success (Did we move the needle on outcomes that matter?)
Document points of agreement and tension. Then translate them into a short list of success indicators everyone can see, measure, and revisit. When success is co-defined, engagement climbs because people know what they’re working toward—and how the network will celebrate wins.
2 | Right-Size Member Involvement
More partners and more meetings do not automatically equal more impact. Each organization has a finite “relationship budget” of time, attention, and goodwill. Map how much involvement—attending meetings, leading projects, sharing data—is truly required from each member to keep the system functional. Rotate high-touch roles and respect members who contribute value in quieter ways (data sharing, issue expertise, or convening power).
3 | Match Network Type to Purpose
Agranoff, Milward, and Provan outline several network archetypes—from loose information exchanges to deeply interdependent action networks. Ask:
- Are we primarily diffusing information, building capacity, co-delivering services, or solving a crisis?
- Do we have the authority (and appetite) for joint decision-making, or is mutual learning enough for now?
Choosing the right archetype early clarifies governance, resource expectations, and the intensity of collaboration you’ll need.
4 | Define Collaboration in Plain Language
Concepts such as “collaboration,” “partnership,” and “network” mean different things to different sectors. Take a beat to co-create working definitions. A clear, shared vocabulary prevents misalignment later when you discuss roles, risk-sharing, or credit for outcomes.
5 | Engineer Your Structure—Then Let It Evolve
Networks often grow through predictable stages: scattered fragments → hub-and-spoke → multi-hub “small-world” → core/periphery. Each stage demands new weaving activity:
- Fragments: identify a Network Weaver who can introduce members and build trust.
- Single hub: encourage cross-spoke ties so the hub doesn’t bottleneck information.
- Multi-hub/core-periphery: reinforce bridges between clusters while preserving the innovation that peripheral members bring.
Periodic social-network analysis (SNA) in PARTNER CPRM makes these transitions visible, letting you act before fragmentation or overload sets in.
Get our monthly newsletter with resources for cross-sector collaboration, VNL recommended reading, and upcoming opportunities for engaged in the “network way of working.”
6 | Choose (or Blend) Governance Modes Wisely
Centralized structures speed decisions and clarify accountability—vital in emergencies. Decentralized or shared-governance models spark innovation and local adaptation. Many high-performing networks blend the two: a lean backbone sets guardrails and manages data while workgroups self-organize around specific tasks. Re-evaluate governance annually; what was nimble at 10 members may creak at 40.
7 | Live the “Network Way of Working”
Operating as a network means valuing interdependence over hierarchy. That includes:
- Sharing resources and data openly.
- Rewarding collective wins over individual credit.
- Allowing leadership to emerge where the energy is, not just where the org chart says it should.
If members aren’t used to this, offer orientation, peer stories, and low-risk pilot projects to build confidence in the model.
8 | Measure Outcomes on Three Levels
An outcome dashboard should track:
- Structural outcomes (How are we connected? Density, centrality, new ties).
- Process outcomes (Are meetings, decisions, and communications working?).
- Impact outcomes (What changed in policy, practice, or population health?).
Link each metric to the success indicators from Step 1 so members see a straight line from meetings to mission.
9 | Write Goals the SMART-Network Way
Strong goals are shared, measurable, realistic, and flexible. But networks add two twists:
- Reciprocal value: State not only the collective win but how individual members benefit.
- Learning loops: Embed checkpoints to tweak targets as the context shifts.
Clear goals don’t box you in; they anchor adaptation.
10 | Codify Roles—and Make Them Rotatable
Core roles—facilitator, backbone support, weaver, steering committee, task-force leads—should be spelled out in plain English, along with time expectations and decision rights. Create a rotation or succession plan so responsibility (and burnout) is shared and new leaders can emerge.
Putting It All Together
Networks flourish when science-based structure meets human-centered relationships. Use the insights above as a checklist: define success, align goals, pick the right structure, share leadership, and measure what matters.
Need a shortcut? PARTNER CPRM can map your current network, surface trust and value scores, and simulate how changes in membership or governance might affect outcomes—all in one integrated platform.
Ready to strengthen your network or curious about your next growth stage? Reach out to the VNL team for a demo or strategy session. We’re here to help you build networks that work.
Sources
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review.
Agranoff, R. (2007). Collaborarchy: A different kind of management. In Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations (pp. 83-124). Georgetown University Press.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1999). Managing in network settings. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 18-41.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Asch, S. M. (2005). Evaluating network performance: Measuring effectiveness in collaborative settings. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 327-345.
Bevc, C. A., Retrum, J., Varda, D. M., & Hawe, P. (2015). Interorganizational networks: A critical resource for public health preparedness infrastructure. American Journal of Public Health, 105(S2), e1-e2.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
Butterfoss, F. D. (2009). Coalitions and partnerships in community health. Jossey-Bass.
Butterfoss, F. D., & Francisco, V. T. (2004). Evaluating community partnerships and coalitions with practitioners in mind. Health Promotion Practice, 5(2), 108-114.
Burkle, F. M. (2003). Measuring performance in interagency disaster management. Disasters, 27(3), 249-261.
Cigler, B. (1999). Pre-conditions for the emergence of multicommunity collaborative organizations. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 87-102.
Courtney, B., Toner, E., Waldhorn, R., et al. (2009). Healthcare coalitions: The new foundation for national healthcare preparedness and response for catastrophic health emergencies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, 7(2), 153-163.
Francisco, V. T. (1993). Community-based partnerships: Lessons from practice. Health Education Quarterly, 20(3), 342-357.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
Kaji, A. H. (2008). Measuring success in interorganizational collaboration: Evaluating public health partnerships. American Journal of Public Health, 98(7), 1210-1216.
Kamensky, A., Burlin, T., & Abramson, M. (2004). Collaboration: Using networks and partnerships. Rowman & Littlefield.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36-41.
Kelly, C. S., Meurer, J. R., Lachance, L. L., et al. (2006). Engaging health care providers in coalition activities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(2_suppl), 66S-75S.
Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge.
Krebs, V., & Holley, J. (2004). Building sustainable communities through network building. Social Capital Research, 1(1), 1-17.
Leifeld, P., & Schneider, V. (2012). Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731-744.
Mays, G. P., & Scutchfield, F. D. (2010). Improving public health system performance through multi-organizational partnerships. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7(6), A116.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative networks. IBM Center for the Business of Government.
O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45-52.
Petersen, D., Minkler, M., Vasquez, V., & Baden, A. (2006). Community-based participatory research as a tool for policy change: A case study of the Southern California Environmental Justice Collaborative. Review of Policy Research, 23(2), 339-353.
Powell, W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 56-79). Oxford University Press.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252.
Provan, K. G., & Lemaire, R. H. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public-sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 638-648.
Singer, H. H., & Kegler, M. C. (2004). Assessing interorganizational networks as a dimension of community capacity. Health Education & Behavior, 31(6), 808-821.
Varda, D. M., Shoup, J. A., & Miller, S. (2012). A systematic review of collaboration and network research in the public affairs literature. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 564-571.
