top of page

CHAPTER 3: ESTABLISH NETWORK MODEL

After establishing that a private sector network has opportunities to create value and fill unmet needs in your country, there are two next steps: establishing the network itself and determining what its initial activities should be. This chapter focuses on establishing the network model, including considerations like hosting arrangements, legal requirements, and initial funding.  While there is no one best model for all networks, there is a standard set of questions to address and the experience of other networks can be informative. The questions in this chapter will help set up a private sector network for success, ensuring it has the required structure and support for long-term sustainability and scale. This chapter and its associated resources can also be used to support the ongoing work of your network as it grows and evolves.

 

The resources in this chapter will help you answer the following questions:

  1. What are the mission and objectives of the network?

  2. What kind of initial organizational bodies can help launch my network?

  3. What are the key considerations to determine an appropriate hosting arrangement?

  4. What role can key private sector actors play in championing a network?

  5. What formal organizational structures should my network include?

  6. How do I formalize a governance structure and what are the key success factors and components?

  7. What are the different ways networks generate funding to support their activities?

  8. What partnerships should a private sector network form?

  9. How do I grow my membership base?

  10. How do I organize my membership base?

6. How do I formalize a governance structure and what are the key success factors and components?
​

<<KEY CONSIDERATIONS>>

​

As a network is established, defining a governance structure is a key step to clarifying who has oversight of the network's activities and makes key decisions about its operations. While there is no "one size fits all" approach, there are key elements that should be considered, both from a functional and a structural level.

 

From a functional perspective, there need to be clear guidelines laid out that establish the following:

  • What are the roles of each stakeholder body in the organization and how do they interact?

  • What are the functions and decision rights of each body?

  • What is the composition of each body and how often does it change? 

  • What is the selection process for new members or the chair?

  • What is the length of member terms and how do they rotate?

  • What forum should exist in which to make decisions, how frequently should it meet, and who should be included, advised, or informed of resulting decisions?

  • How and when should actors delegate authority to make decisions?

  • How will the organization resolve conflicts of opinion and who has the final say?

​

<<EXAMPLE TYPOLOGIES>>

​

Although there is no perfect governance structure, there are a number of common approaches and typologies into which network governance structures tend to fall.  The four basic typologies are:

  • Primary Lead Organizations: Decisions made by one primary member, typically the founder or host organization and usually in consultation with members or partners. This approach is uncommon except the during the initial start-up phase of a network, given the importance of diverse, representative membership to a network's decision-making body.

  • Multiple Lead Organizations: Decisions made by several leads, typically the founder and key initial partners. This approach is common during the initial start-up of a network as it allows key partners and founders to easily set programmatic priorities and direction.  May also be used with a "fee for board membership" approach.

  • Rotating Board: Decisions made by a diverse board composed of members, partners, and/or government.  Board representation may be rotated regularly with specific term limits and a clear process for extending terms or selecting new members.

  • Member Consortium: Decisions made by consensus by the full membership or by a representative body reflecting the membership body.

​

Example of Network Goverance typologies:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some important questions to consider in deciding how to structure the network's governance arrangements include:

  • Which governance structure aligns with my hosting arrangement and requirements (meets hosting rules and regulations)?

  • What rules and processes are required to ensure adequate representation of key actors (the host, founders, UN/Government members)?

  • Have I ensured that the governance model is fair, transparent, and inclusive of all members?

  • Which structure broadens the possible funding options of the network (allows for major donors to acquire leadership/decision-making positions)?

  • Does this governance structure meet all legal requirements (what governance structure is required when you are a nonprofit foundation)?

​

<<A NOTE ON LANGUAGE>>

 

The permanent governance structure for a network is often established by a multi-stakeholder initial working group. In this context, it bears recognizing that humanitarian and private sector actors may approach governance in different ways and use different language to describe certain elements. For example, a UN agency may emphasize ensuring wide stakeholder representation, whereas a private sector actor may be focused on making sure governance roles are available to major contributors. The language used to describe something can be different – a UN agency may be more likely to refer to the staff of the network as the Secretariat, a term not commonly used in the private sector.  During the process of establishing a governance model, it bears remembering that not all stakeholders may be coming to the table from a common starting place.

​

<<SUPPORTING MATERIAL>>

 

Example TORs that can be adapted to different bodies (Steering Committee and Interim Working Group)

​

bottom of page