1

COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INTIATIVE

Syllabus

NETWORKS AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

____________________________________________________________________________

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

This MPA/MPP course introduces students to the theory, skills, and processes of managing

networks in a public management setting. Public managers in the 21st century must learn to

build critical linkages across organizational boundaries while simultaneously managing the

internal functions of their agencies. Public policy is often designed and implemented through

networks, as structures involving multiple nodes—agencies and organizations—with multiple

linkages through which public goods and services are planned, designed, produced, and

delivered. At all levels of government and in each sector, managers require a different and

more complex approach to management than the traditional notions of hierarchy and

“command and control.”

By the end of this course, the student will be able to:

1. Identify the fundamental changes in public management that have led to the increasing

usage of intergovernmental, interagency, and intersectoral networks;

2. Understand the differences between managing hierarchies and managing networks;

3. Practice and apply various techniques and tools for improving the management of

network processes;

4. Suggest courses of action for improving performance of public management networks.

This syllabus was a winner in the 2007 Don Kettl/Smith Richardson Foundation “Networks and Public

Management” competition. It was written by Mike McGuire and Beth Gazley of Indiana University -

Bloomington. It is brought to you by E-PARC, part of the Maxwell School of Syracuse University‟s

Collaborative Governance Initiative, a subset of the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts.

This syllabus may be copied as many times as needed as long as the authors are given full credit for their

work.

Free Electronic Teaching Resources brought to you by

E-PARC at The Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts

The Maxwell School of Syracuse University

315-443-2367

www.e-parc.org www.maxwell.syr.edu/parc

2

REQUIRED READINGS

Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Goldsmith, Stephen and William D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of

the Public Sector. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Mandell, Myrna P. (ed.). 2001. Getting Results through Collaboration: Networks and Network

Structures for Public Policy and Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Additional readings are listed in the syllabus and can be found either in full text through the

university‟s libraries website or from books reserved at the library. Cases and simulation

instructions will be handed out in class.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING CRITERIA

Class Participation (10% of grade)

The course will emphasize discussion, group work, simulations, and some lecture. We will

organize the course as a seminar with all students taking part in presenting and discussing the

course materials. We will introduce the pertinent subject matter, but students will be expected

to actively participate in discussion (and, in some cases, lead the discussion) and read and

comprehend all of the required readings. In some class sessions throughout the semester the

class will break into groups. WE PLACE A PREMIUM ON GROUP LEARNING, so effort in

such groups is expected and will be noted. It is imperative that all students come to class

prepared. Taking part in the discussion of the readings, providing insights to exercises, and

helping to lead discussions will comprise 10% of your final grade.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simulation (20% of grade)

Each week during Part II of the course (weeks 4-8) students will participate in a simulation of

a hypothetical network. Student will assume a role within the network and learn to practice

managerial skills such as designing a network, stimulating interaction, negotiation,

consensus-building, goal development, and performance evaluation. The full simulation will

be distributed to the students during week 3 and roles will be assigned at that time. A brief

description of the simulation is included below. Simulation grades will be based on student

journal entries of reflections on the roles played in the network, displaying clear applications

of the skills and competencies during the simulation, and creativity.

Simulation of Hypothetical Network

The simulation is modeled after an initiative to restore and protect salmon runs across

Puget Sound. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the National Oceanic and

3

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are

the federal agencies responsible for implementation. The act requires a recovery plan for

listed species that typically is written by the federal agencies prescribing local actions.

Realizing the opportunity to act on behalf of the region, a collaborative initiative will be

undertaken to coordinate with existing recovery efforts in the area. Parties to the

hypothetical network will include Tribal governments, state government, local

governments, business and conservation groups, NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Literature Review (25% of grade)

Students will prepare a paper corresponding to one of the policy or issue areas covered in part

III (weeks 9-14). The paper will include three components: (1) an extensive review of the

literature on networks and public management within the policy area; (2) any “lessons learned”

that can be drawn from the literature review; and (3) a concluding section with a discussion of

future challenges in the policy area. The paper will be approximately 15 pages in length. A 10

minute (approximately) overview of the paper will be presented orally to the class during the

corresponding week. Each student will distribute to the class a one to two-page outline of the

paper that summarizes the major points.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Networks and Public Management News Briefings (10% of grade) As a means to generate discussion about specific instances of network management, students

are required to present two briefings to the class. The student will lead a 3-5 minute discussion

on two different published popular press articles throughout the semester that can be found in

newspapers, periodicals (e.g., Newsweek or Governing), or government association

publications (e.g., National League of Cities). The articles should be as current as possible

(within the past few months at the most) and can come from anywhere in the nation or world.

Ideally, the articles will address an issue, project, or program that coincides with the class

material covered at the time.

Each newspaper article review is worth 5 percent of the grade for a total of 10 percent toward

the final grade. The briefings should provide a short description of a real life networked issue,

process, project, or program. The student will decide when to brief the class, but should notify

us at least one day in advance of the class so we can plan the course material for that day. In

terms of content, the briefings should be descriptive in tone. What is the issue, project, or

program? Why is it occurring? Who is involved? What are the problems encountered? How

does it relate to class? Students are not required to turn in any material on the project; you will

simply brief the class by applying these guidelines. Briefing grades will be based on salience

of the issue, answering the aforementioned questions, and ability to generate discussion around

the briefing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4

Examination (25% of grade)

There will be one examination in the class scheduled for Week 16. The exam will require

students to synthesize and analytically reflect upon the course readings, discussions, exercises,

and lectures. All questions on the exam will be definitional and essay questions. The exam is

worth 25 percent of your final grade.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classroom Exercises (10% of grade)

Each week during Part III of the course (weeks 9-14) students will participate in a brief

classroom exercise and discussion. These exercises will include analyses of published cases or

of government reports. Students will be given the cases and discussion questions in advance of

the pertinent class session. The purposes of this component of your grade are to (1) expose the

students to real and/or simulated situations where particular public management issues must be

addressed, (2) provide an opportunity for the students to offer rich and thoughtful insights and

recommendations, and (3) demonstrate the value of thinking analytically about a network

management problem.

Synopses of the four cases to be analyzed in weeks 9, 10, 12, and 13 are included below (the

full citation for each case is included in the syllabus under the week it is covered).

Week 9: Environmental and Natural Resource Management Networks

Bureaucracy and Intergovernmental Relations in the EPA (synopsis)

The manager of hazardous waste cleanup for EPA's Region XV was asked to speed up the

approval of a treatment plan for a “brownfields” site located in a medium-sized city. A

ocal economic development board wants to include the property in a redevelopment plan

but cannot proceed because of the unresolved liability and cleanup issues at the site. In

order to make a decision, the manager is forced to contend with both supporters and foes of

the planned development, including nearby cities, state economic development and

environmental management agencies, regional council of governments, nonprofit

organizations, and local actors like the Chamber of Commerce and the development board.

What interests or interest groups are involved in the outcome of this decision and on which

side of the issue? How important is it for someone in Lee's position to develop effective

working relationships with people in other government agencies as well as state and local

agencies? What relationships should she try to build? How? What groups and

intergovernmental organizations need to be brought to the case?

5

Week 10: Economic Development Networks

Fare Integration in the Puget Sound Region (synopsis)

This case challenges students to penetrate the complexities of metropolitan governance.

Sound Transit, an entity newly created by voter mandate, must organize a „seamless,

one-ticket system‟ across the boundaries of four established transit agencies in order to

launch regional transportation service on time. Told from the perspective of a low level

manager buffeted by interagency dynamics as she struggles with the technical complexities

of fare integration, the story invites students to analyze obstacles to, and incentives for,

interagency cooperation; Sound Transit‟s committed, but sometimes counterproductive,

input to the process; and sources of both tension and momentum in the fare integration

effort itself.

Week 12: Human Services Networks

Integrating Housing and Social Services: Local Initiative versus Federal Mandate (synopsis)

"Project Self-Sufficiency" was an award winning program spearheaded by the housing

authority in Snohomish County, Washington. The program was designed to coordinate

services to help move people out of poverty, instead of just providing temporary low

income housing. An excellent example of how local government agencies and nonprofit

groups can band together to create effective services, this case's real twist comes when

HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) issues new criteria

for funding that would effectively destroy most of the key components of the project. How

should the local coalition respond to HUD's new requirements? How can they preserve an

excellent program?

Week 13: Knowledge Management and Information Technology Networks

The KIDSNET Story: Can a Medical-Information System Improve Public Health? (synopsis)

In January, 1997, the Rhode Island Department of Public Health inaugurated KIDSNET, an

effort to harness the power of information technology to ensure that all children in the state

received proper preventive care. The medical “informatics” system was designed to track

essential public-health data—such as immunizations—and make it accessible to the health

care providers and public health programs across the state. The marriage of computer

records and public health did not go smoothly, however, and, in late 1999, a consultant

found that the system was “grossly underutilized.” This case describes the complexities

and conflicts which arose in making the informatics system operational and which slowed

its progress toward full implementation. It specifically frames the question of how the

6

Family Health Division of the Rhode Island Health Department should assess the

program‟s problems and how those problems might be fixed. The case is designed to

support discussion of how information technology systems can best be utilized to improve

public sector performance and to examine bureaucratic barriers to implementation, why

they arise, and how they can be overcome.

GRADE SCALE

The weighing of the course elements for the semester grade is as follows:

The semester grade will be determined as follows:

A+ 100-98% A 97.9%-93% A- 92.9%-90%

B+ 89.9%-88% B 87.9%-83% B- 82.9%-80%

C+ 79.9%-78% C 77.9%-73% C- 72.9%-70%

All assignments are due at the beginning of the class on the date the assignment is due. Late

work will be downgraded one full letter grade for each day it is late and will not be accepted

more than 48 hours after the due date. We will consider making individual exceptions to this

policy, but only if an exception is requested in advance, is legitimate, and can be documented.

Make-up examinations will only be given under dire circumstances; however, the instructors

must be notified prior to the exam. We reserve the right to ask different questions on make-up

exams.

7

NETWORKS AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

TOPICS AND READING ASSIGNMENTS - FALL 2007

I. Introduction to Networked Public Management

Week One: Introduction to the Course

Exercise: Classroom simulation of a public policy decision in a networked setting.

Organize into small groups. Assume your group is the county‟s emergency manager. You

have been charged with updating the county‟s disaster response plan. Outline a plan of action

for getting this done. Who should be involved? What levels of government and what sectors

are involved? What will motivate the actors, and what should they expect from the county?

What should the county expect from them, and how can you assure expectations are met?

What managerial challenges can you anticipate, and how would you recommend addressing

them in this plan?

Week Two: The Emergence of Networked Public Management

The goal of this course unit is to increase the student‟s understanding of networks, why

networks emerge, and why their use is increasing.

Readings

Goldsmith and Eggers

Chapter 1: The New Shape of Government

Chapter 2: Advantages of the Network Model

Chapter 3: Challenges of the Network Model

O'Toole, Laurence J. 1997. Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based

Agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 57(1): 45-52.

Podolny, Joel M., and ­Karen L. Page. 1998. Network Forms of Organization. Annual

Review of Sociology 24(1): 57-76.

Powell, Walter W. 1990. Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.

Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295-336.

Week Three: Network Types and Purposes

Networks can pursue different purposes and there is no single type of network, so alternative

types of networks will be discussed. Emphasis is on the scope and degree of interaction

among members of the network.

8

Readings

Agranoff

Chapter 1: Public Networks

Chapter 2: Networks in Public Management

Chapter 4: Informational and Developmental Networks

Chapter 5: Outreach and Action Networks

Fosler, R. Scott. 2002. Working Better Together: How Government, Business, and Nonprofit

Organizations Can Achieve Public Purposes through Cross-sector Collaboration,

Alliances, and Partnerships (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Gazley, Beth. 2007. Beyond the Contract: The Scope and Nature of Informal

Government-Nonprofit Partnerships. Public Administration Review (forthcoming).

Hall, Thad E., and Laurence J. O'Toole. 2004. Shaping Formal Networks through the

Regulatory Process. Administration and Society 36(2): 186-207.

II. Making Networks Work

The discussion of the context of network management continues with a look at the

determinants of effectiveness in networks as well as the barriers that must be overcome for

networks to succeed. Students will explore internal and external capacity considerations such

as network leadership, resources, and political support. The process of goal formation and the

ideas of “collaborative advantage” and “collaborative inertia” (Huxham 2003) are considered,

along with models of network performance and evaluation. This five-week unit introduces the

core competencies expected of network managers. The multi-week simulation will also be

implemented during this unit.

Week Four: Overview of Network Management

This unit provides an introduction to the issues involved in managing networks including

network design, interaction, performance, and process. In-depth explorations of these network

management issues will take place over the following five weeks.

Readings

Agranoff

Chapter 6: Collaborarchy: A Different Kind of Management?

Mandell

Chapter 2: After the Network is Formed: Process, Power, and Performance

Huxham, Chris. 2003. Theorizing Collaboration Practice. Public Management Review 5

(3): 401-423.

9

Kettl, Donald F. 2006. Managing Boundaries in American Administration: The

Collaboration Imperative. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 10-19.

McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know

and How We Know It. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 33-43.

Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith G. Provan. 2006. A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and

Using Collaborative Networks. IBM Center for The Business of Government.

Week Five: Designing the Network

There are many different design choices for networks. Students will learn the fundamentals of

designing and building the network, including recognizing the different governance structures

that can be used. This includes facilitating agreement on leadership and administrative roles;

helping to establish an identity and culture for the network, even if temporary or continually

changing; and assisting in developing a working structure for the network (i.e., committee

involvement, network “assignments”).

Readings

Goldsmith and Eggers: Chapter 4: Designing the Network

Granovetter, Mark. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6):

1360-1380.

Mandell, Myrna P., and Toddi A. Steelman. 2003. Understanding What Can Be

Accomplished Through Interorganizational Innovations: The Importance of Typologies,

Context and Management Strategies. Public Management Review 5(2): 197-224.

Provan, Keith G., and Patrick Kenis. 2005. Modes of Network Governance and

Implications for Network Management and Effectiveness. Presented at the Eighth National

Public Management Research Conference, Los Angeles, CA, September 29 - October 1.

Week Six: Creating a Constituency, Stimulating Interaction, and Collaboration

Students will learn the importance of creating a key constituency for the network‟s operations.

Such skills include mobilizing support both within and outside of the networks, measuring

network progress, and publicizing network accomplishments, especially the “small wins.”

This unit will address the tools of evaluating the potential contribution of these actors and

analyzing the effect of network activities on the actors. Students will also learn tools that can

be used to create and enhance the conditions for favorable, productive interaction among

network actors. The competencies required to facilitate exchange consist of diplomatic skills

involving persuasion and the ability to facilitate and mediate discussion.

10

Readings

Goldsmith and Eggers

Chapter 5: Ties That Bind

Mandell

Chapter 6: Environmental Networks: Relying on Process or Outcome for Motivation

Termeer, C.J.A.M., and Joop F.M. Koppenjan. 1997. Managing Perceptions in Networks. In

Managing Complex Networks, edited by Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop

F.M. Koppenjan, 79-97. London: Sage Publications.

Thomson, Ann Marie, and James L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black

Box. Public Administration Review 66 (s1): 20-32.

Vangen, Siv, and Chris Huxham. 2003. Nurturing Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in

Interorganizational Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39(1): 5-31.

Week Seven: Goal Development, Accountability, and Performance Evaluation

Joint goal setting fosters a “program rationale” for the network. Strategic planning by

participants in the network is one important way to help develop an overall purpose and

framework for the collaborative effort. Students will be exposed to planning techniques for

answering the “what” question regarding the mission and purpose of the network and to

methods for assessing the performance of a network.

Readings

Agranoff

Chapter 8: Do Networks Perform? Adding Value and Accounting for Costs

Goldsmith and Eggers

Chapter 6: Networks and the Accountability Dilemma

Mandell

Chapter 4: Assessing and Modeling Determinants of Capacity for Action in Networked

Programs

Gazley, Beth, and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 2007. The Purpose (and Perils) of

Government-Nonprofit Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36(3):

389-415.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O'Toole. 2003. Public Management and Educational

Performance: The Impact of Managerial Networking. Public Administration Review 63(6):

689-699.

11

O‟Toole, Laurence J., Kenneth J. Meier, and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2005. Managing

Upward, Downward, and Outward: Networks, Hierarchical Relationships, and

Performance. Public Management Review 7(1): 45-68.

Page, Stephen. 2004. Measuring Accountability for Results in Interagency Collaboratives.

Public Administration Review 64(5): 591-606.

Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do Networks Really Work? A Framework

for Evaluating Public Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review 61(4):

414-423.

Week Eight: Bargaining, Negotiation, and Conflict Management

Network managers must understand and develop mechanisms for resolving conflict. This unit

will focus on helping students learn the skills of negotiation for “getting past no” and moving

network operations from possible confrontation to cooperation. Issues related to

organizational “turf” will be addressed and other competencies such as bargaining and

negotiation will be applied to the resolution of conflict within the network.

Readings

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2004. Another Look at Bargaining and

Negotiation in Intergovernmental Management. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory 14(4): 495-512.

Coleman, Peter T., and Morton Deutsch. 2000. Some Guidelines for Developing a Creative

Approach to Conflict. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, edited

by Morton Deutsch and Peter T. Coleman, 355-65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elliott, Michael. 1999. The Use of Facilitators, Mediators, and Other Professional Neutrals.

In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement,

edited by Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Straus, David A. 1999. Designing a Consensus Building Process Using a Graphic Road

Map. In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching

Agreement, edited by Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer,

137-168. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

III. Situations and Examples

Students will learn about the prevalence of networks in various policy settings. This course

unit will be organized to have students conduct reviews of the literature and compile “lessons

learned” from one of the policy areas, and present their findings to the class.

12

Week Nine: Environmental and Natural Resource Management Networks

Classroom Exercise

Analysis and discussion of Bureaucracy and Intergovernmental Relations in the EPA

(Case adapted from Nelson, Lisa. 2002. Dealing with Bureaucracy and Intergovernmental

Relations: The EPA and Hazardous Waste.” In Public Administration: Cases in Managerial

Role-Playing, edited by Robert P. Watson. New York: Longman Publishers.)

Readings

Mandell

Chapter 14: Reaching Consensus on the Tampa Bay Estuary Program Interlocal

Agreement: A Perspective

Bingham, Lisa B., David Fairman, Daniel J. Fiorino, and Rosemary O‟Leary. 2003.

Fulfilling the Promise of Environmental Conflict Resolution. In The Promise and

Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, edited by Rosemary O‟Leary and Lisa

B. Bingham, 329-351. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Imperial, Mark T. 2005. Using Collaboration as a Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six

Watershed Management Programs. Administration and Society 37(3): 281-320.

Koontz, Tomas, and Craig W. Thomas. 2006. What Do We Know and Need to Know about

the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management? Public Administration Review

66 (s1): 111-121.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1-2.

Week Ten: Economic Development Networks

Classroom Exercise

Analysis and discussion of Fare Integration in the Puget Sound Region (Case from the

Electronic Hallway)

Readings

Mandell

Chapter 13: Neighborhood Networks in Worcester: Partnerships That Work

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 1998. The Intergovernmental Context of Local

Economic Development. State and Local Government Review 30(3): 150-164.

Gordon, Victoria. 2007. Partners or Competitors? Perceptions of Regional Economic

Development Cooperation in Illinois. Economic Development Quarterly 21(1): 60-78.

13

Radin, Beryl A., Robert Agranoff, Ann O'M. Bowman, Gregory C. Buntz, Steven J. Ott,

Barbara S. Romzek, and Robert H. Wilson. 1996. New Governance for Rural America:

Creating Intergovernmental Partnerships. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Chapters

4, 6-7.

Week Eleven: Emergency Management and Homeland Security Networks

Classroom Exercise

Analysis and discussion of U.S. Government Accountability Office reports on the federal

response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 (e.g., GAO-07-1142T, GAO-07-854,

GAO-07-88, GAO-06-442T, GAO-06-618, GAO-06-467T, GAO-07-395T, GAO-06-746T)

Readings

Drabek, Thomas E., and David A. McEntire. 2002. Emergent Phenomena and

Multiorganizational Coordination in Disasters: Lessons from the Research Literature.

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 20(2): 197-224.

Kettl, Donald. 2003. Contingent Coordination: Practical and Theoretical Problems for

Homeland Security. American Review of Public Administration 33(3); 253-77.

Kiefer, John J., and Robert S. Montjoy. 2006. Incrementalism before the Storm: Network

Performance for the Evacuation of New Orleans. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 122

-130.

McEntire, David A. 2002. Coordinating Multi-Organisational Responses to Disaster:

Lessons from the March 28, 2000, Fort Worth Tornado. Disaster Prevention and

Management 11(5): 369-379.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2005. Leveraging Collaborative Networks in Infrequent Emergency

Situations. IBM Center for The Business of Government.

Waugh Jr., William L., and Gregory Streib. 2006. Collaboration and Leadership for

Effective Emergency Management. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 131-140.

Week Twelve: Human Services Networks

Classroom Exercise

Analysis and discussion of Integrating Housing and Social Services: Local Initiative versus

Federal Mandate (Case from the Electronic Hallway)

Readings

Mandell

14

Chapter 7: Bringing About Change in a Public School System: An Interorganizational

Network Approach

Chapter 8: The Impact of Network Structures on Community-Building Efforts: The Los

Angeles Roundtable for Children Community Studies

Isett, Kimberly Roussin, and Keith G. Provan. 2005. The Evolution of Dyadic

Interorganizational Relationships in a Network of Publicly Funded Nonprofit Agencies.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(1): 149-165.

Lynn Jr., Laurence E. 1996. Assume a Network: Reforming Mental Health Services in

Illinois. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 6(2): 297-314.

Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 1995. A Preliminary Theory of

Interorganizational Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health

Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(1): 1-33.

Week Thirteen: Knowledge Management and Information Technology in Networks

Classroom Exercise

Analysis and discussion of The KIDSNET Story: Can a Medical-Information System

Improve Public Health? (Case C16-05-1800.0 from the Kennedy School of Government

Case Program, Harvard University)

Readings

Agranoff

Chapter 7: Networks as Knowledge Managers

Mandell

Chapter 18: Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management

Brown, Mary Maureen, Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr., and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 1998.

Implementing Information Technology in Government: An Empirical Assessment of the

Role of Local Partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(4):

499-525.

Week Fourteen: Networks in a Global Context

Classroom Exercise

Teams of students will profile an international network. The teams will provide a

description of the network to the rest of the class that focuses on network structure,

leadership, and operations. Particular attention should be given to how the network

interacts with other organizations and networks.

15

Readings

Mandell

Chapter 3: From Subnet to Supranet: A Proposal for a Comparative Network Framework

to Examine Network Interaction Across Borders.

Chapter 10: Cross-Sectoral Policy Networks: Lessons from Developing and

Transitioning Countries

Chapter 11: Will the People Really Speak? A Networking Perspective on Hong Kong as

it Attempts to Build a Democratic Political Infrastructure

Chapter 12: The New South Wales Demonstration Projects in Integrated Community

Care

Reinicke, Wolfgang H., Francis M. Deng, et al. 2000. Critical Choices: The United Nations,

Networks, and the Future of Global Governance. Global Public Policy Institute.

Week Fifteen: The Future of Governing through Networks

The course will conclude with a discussion of whether and how networks are “managed.”

Notions of “co-governance” and “steering/rowing” will be used as a framework for

understanding the potential for networks to both help and hinder goals of public accountability

and responsiveness.

Readings

Agranoff

Chapter 9: Networks at the Boundaries of the State

Chapter 10: Managing in Public Networks

Goldsmith and Eggers

Chapter 7: Building the Capacity for Network Governance

Chapter 8: The Road Ahead

Week Sixteen: Final Exam

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Additional Reading Resources

6, Perri, Nick Goodwin, Edward Peck, and Tim Freeman. 2006. Managing Networks of Twenty

-First Century Organisations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Abramson, Mark A., Jonathan D. Breul and John M. Kamensky. 2006. Six Trends

Transforming Government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.

16

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New

Strategies for Local Governments. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of

Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Clegg, Stewart R. 1990. Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern

World. London: Sage.

Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hanf, Kenneth, and Fritz W. Scharpf (eds.) 1978. Interorganizational Policy-Making. London:

Sage Publications

Koppenjan, Joop and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2004. Managing Uncertainties in Networks. London:

Routledge.

Kooiman, Jan. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London:

Sage.

O‟Toole, L.J. Jr. 1997. Networking requirements, institutional capacity, and implementation

gaps in transitional regimes: The case of acidification policy in Hungary. Journal of European

Public Policy, 4(1), 1-17.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective

Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.