Moving from Logical to Network
Frameworks:
A modular matrix approach to
representing and evaluating complex
programs
Rick Davies, Tuesday, 19 July 2005
Current status: DRAFT: NOT FOR GENERALCIRCULATION
This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. To
view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ or send a letter to
Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
1. Network Perspectives: Moving From Theory To Practice
Origins
Ambitions
Approach
2
2
2
3
2. Recognising the social network structure of the Logical Framework
The Social Structure Of The Logical Framework
The Network Structure Of The Logical Framework
3
3
4
3. Network perspectives on three different scales
Defining network boundaries
Implications for monitoring and evaluation tasks
The limitations of a three networks perspective
5
6
7
9
4. Describing networks
Matrices and network diagrams
Different types of matrices
Representing actor’s attributes as well as their relationships
Representing the temporal dimension
Matrices as building blocks
9
9
11
15
16
17
5. Developing a library of matrix modules
Matrices within Internal Networks
Matrices within Boundary Networks
Matrices and the Outer Network
19
19
28
33
6. Comparisons with related developments
Circles of stakeholders
Metamatrix
Concept Mapping
The 2 x 2 Frameworks Inventory
38
38
38
40
41
7. Resume: Implications for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
What about indicators?
42
43
8. Future Developments
Developing rules about developing modules
Developing participatory data collection and analysis methods
Introducing modular matrices for the first time
References
45
45
46
46
48
1
1. Network Perspectives: Moving From Theory To Practice
Origins
In two papers produced in 2002 and 2003 I have outlined some of the major
problems involved in trying to represent, and thus plan and evaluate, complex
development interventions. The first paper, called “Scale, Complexity and the
Representation of Theories of Change (Davies, 2004, 2005), was presented in the
2002 European Evaluation Society conference in Seville. The second paper, called
“Network Perspectives In The Evaluation Of Development Interventions: More Than
A Metaphor”, was presented at the 2003 EDIAIS Conference: New Directions In
Impact Assessment For Development: Methods And Practice (Davies 2003). Both
papers have argued for a move away from linear representations of development
interventions, to more network based perspectives. Both papers examine problems
with existing methods and the opportunities and implications of a different approach.
Ambitions
This paper attempts to move forward with the development of some practical means
of operationalising a network perspective. It is based on two sources of experience.
One is the body of methods for representing and analysing networks, developed in
the field of Social Network Analysis (Scott, 2000; Freeman, 2004). The other is my
own consulting experience with international aid organisations over the last few
years; especially since the Seville paper was presented. In this paper I have drawn
on applications developed in the course of program monitoring and evaluation work
carried out in Ghana, Vietnam, Australia and the United Kingdom.
The proposals made in this paper take the Logical Framework1 as their starting point.
This is because within the field of development aid the Logical Framework is a
common and familiar reference point for how project designs can be represented,
and as such can provide readers with a recognisable starting point2. However, please
note that the use of the network frameworks described here do not require the use of
the Logical Framework.
Another early warning may be appropriate. This paper presents a number of related
frameworks, which can be used to represent different kinds of network perspectives.
What is not being provided is one new Network Framework, taking the place of the
one old Logical Framework. As will be shown, the use of a range of frameworks can
provide flexibility in the focus of attention, from the very micro to the very macro, in
different settings. At the same time, overlap in the contents of these frameworks
enables them to be linked together into one larger network of frameworks. In effect,
what has been developed is a modular approach to the representation of theories of
1
The Logical Framework is a four by four planning matrix, forming sixteen cells, each containing text
information. The four columns are the Narrative – a description of expected changes, Objectively
Verifiable Indicators – of those changes, Means of Verification – of those indicators, and Assumptions
about external influences on the expected changes, both positive and negative. The four rows are the
Activities, which lead via Assumptions on that row, to the Output, which lead via Assumptions on that
row, to the Purpose, which leads via Assumptions on that row to the Goal. See
http://www.mande.co.uk/logframe.htm for further information
2 Within the field of evaluation, extending beyond development aid, the Logical Framework can be seen
as a type of program Logic model. The use of Logic Models in evaluation has been reviewed by Kellogg
(2004).
2
change, which provides both scalability and sensitivity to specific circumstances.
How to reconcile these two challenges was the focal concern of the Seville paper.
Approach
This paper has eight sections. In section two the implicit social and network structure
of the Logical Framework is drawn out, as a means of locating the approach in
familiar territory, and thus providing a bridge to a network perspective.
In section three this analysis generates three generic types of network perspectives
that have different implications for evaluation activities. This section in turn provides
an introduction into a more complex set of representations.
Section four details the variety of ways in which networks can be represented by the
use of different types of matrices, and how they can then be used as modules, to
build larger-scale representations.
Section five introduces the idea of a public library of modular matrices, and provides
a range of examples representing different types of networks: within organisations, in
their relationships with others, and beyond.
Section six compares the modular matrix approach with four other developments that
have some similarities in terms of the type of analysis made, and tools used.
Section seven provides a resume, summarising the types of evaluation issues
associated with the different uses of modular matrices.
Section eight looks into the future, at the further development of this approach, and
how it can be promoted.
2. Recognising the social network structure of the Logical
Framework
The Social Structure Of The Logical Framework
As I have argued in the 2003 paper, it is useful to think of events described in the
Logical Framework in an actor-centred way, not simply as events involving
disembodied and abstract processes of change. When this is done most “theories of
change” documented within a Logical Framework becomes clearer, along with their
plausibility (or lack thereof). At a more theoretical level, the use of actor-oriented
descriptions helps avoid what have been described as “under-socialised
interpretations of causality” (Uusikyla & Valorvirta, 2004).
At least five types of actors
Within many uses of the Logical Framework there are at least five different types of
actors involved, each represented at different locations within the Logical
Framework3. I have given each of these a label, for the purpose of discussion in this
paper. They are not part of the normal use of the Logical Framework.
3
This is a minimalist classification, more types could be developed.
3
1. The Intervening Organisation, responsible for implementing the project described
by the Logical Framework. The default assumption here is that this is a single
organisation. However, in some projects it may be a partnership of organisations,
or a looser network of organisations. The Intervening Organisation is normally
referred to in both the Activities and Outputs levels of the Logical Framework.
2. The Intervening Organisation’s Immediate Partners. These are the people or
organisations that make use of the Outputs of the Intervening Organisation.
These are the same group that IDRC’s Outcome Mapping method calls the
Boundary Partners (Earl, et al, 2002). The changes that are expected to take
place within the Immediate Partners are normally described at the Purpose level
of the Logical Framework.
3. The Final Clients, or ultimate intended beneficiaries, of the Intervening
Organisation’s activities. They can be linked directly or indirectly to the Immediate
Partners, but in most large projects they are more likely to be linked indirectly,
through Intermediaries (other organisations and / or people). The Final Clients
are normally referred to at the Goal level of the Logical Framework.
4. Intermediaries, as already introduced. The Intermediaries are not given a
separate row of their own in the Logical Framework. They are however likely to
be referred to in the Assumptions column that links the Purpose to the Goal.
5. Other Actors who may interact with and influence the Intervening Organisation,
Immediate Partners, and Final Clients. Like the Intermediaries, these are referred
to in the Assumptions column at the Output and Purpose level of the Logical
Framework. Usually as abstract processes and influences, but their identities can
often be established.
The Network Structure Of The Logical Framework
It is important to recognise that the connections between each of the adjacent levels
of the Logical Framework (and the associated types of actors) can be quite complex.
In practice, often there is no simple linear relationship between events at one level
and the next. Typically many of the various linkages overlap, creating networks of
relationships. I will explain this in more detail.
Firstly, within the Intervening Organisation one Output may require a number of
different Activities. For example, a workshop may require hiring of a trainer,
production of handouts, etc. And one Activity may contribute to a number of Outputs.
For example, the same handouts may also be used within a Documentation Centre
and in a report to donors.
In turn, one Output produced by the Intervening Organisation may be used by a
number of different types of Immediate Partners. For example, a range of Immediate
Partners may attend a workshop organised by the Intervening Organisation. And one
type of Immediate Partner may make use of more than one project Output. For
example, the publications and videos that have also been produced.
In turn, the connection between those Intermediate Partners and the project’s Final
Clients may be direct or via one or more Intermediaries. The Intervening
Organisation’s connections may converge on the same clients through a range of
routes. For example, through different kinds of health services, in both the private
4
and public sector. Or they may be mediated through multiple service providers of the
same kind. For example, the Final Clients may belong to one or more micro-finance
schemes operated by different intermediaries. The range of potential and complex
pathways of influence between Immediate Partners and Final Clients is not easy
captured within the normal use of the Logical Framework structure. One reason
being, as noted above, is that there are no additional rows in the Logical Framework
to represent the roles of intermediaries.
Figure 1: A (sparse) network of interconnections as incidentally recognised in the
CIDA (2000) manual on Results Based Management.
Networks of indicators as well as actors
The focus so far has been on the actors as documented in the narrative column of
the Logical Framework. Associated with the narrative statement at each level there
are typically multiple indicators (in the Means of Verification column). The linkage
between indicators at each level of a Logical Framework is rarely given as much
attention as the linkages between narratives at each level (aka “vertical logic”).
Nevertheless it would be logical to also expect some form of causal linkage between
indicators at each adjacent level. Because there are typically multiple indicators at
each level it is highly likely that these will be connected in some form of network,
rather than as series of parallel one-to-one linkages. The number of new MCH clinics
opened and operating (an Output indicator) may link into indicators relating to
maternal health, child nutrition, child mortality, etc. Likewise, a child nutrition status
indicator may well link back to a number of health service outputs, such as health
education, immunisation, diarrhoea control, etc.
3. Network perspectives on three different scales
Recognising the social (and) network structure of the Logical Framework provides us
with an alternative. In place of one Logical Framework, we can have at least three
related network perspectives on what is happening. Each of these focuses on a
different set of relationships, taking place at a different scale.
The different scales are as follows:
1. Within the intervening organisation. The network perspective here can focus on
relationships between members within the organisation. It can also focus on the
relationships between on budget inputs, activities, outputs and objectives within
that organisation, as identified by these actors. This can be called the Internal
Network.
5
2. Between the intervening organisation and its immediate partners that it interacts
with. The network perspective here can focus on the nature of the relationships
between an organisation and the external actors it is interacting with. It can also
include the relationships that exist between those immediate partners. This can
be called the Boundary Network (acknowledging IDRC’s thinking in this area).
3. Beyond the intervening organisation and its immediate partners. Including any
intermediaries, final clients and other actors the intervening organisation is not in
contact with. This can be called the Outer Network4
In Social Network Analysis terms boundary partners are within one “degree” of the
intervening organisation and those in the outer network are two or more degrees
from the intervening organisation. A degree is a measure of social distance, a single
degree being a direct link between one person and another.
These different network perspectives and the five kinds of actors involved are shown
in simple network diagram form, in Figure 2 below. In Social Network Analysis these
perspective are often described as Ego Networks, because they are see from one
perspective and normally represent a partial picture of a larger and more complex
network of actors.
Figure 2: Three network perspectives
1
2-5
6-8
9-12
13-16
Intervening Organisation
Immediate Partners
14
Intermediaries
13
9
Final Clients
Other Actors
6
2
10
3
1
7
4
11
5
8
15
12
16
Defining network boundaries
In reality many networks of relationships between actors involved in development
projects will be more complex than shown in this Ego Network - with more actors,
more categories of actors and more complex connections between them all. It is also
possible that the status of different actors will change over time. For example, actors
may change from being Intermediaries to being Immediate Partners, or the other way
around.
4
This choice of label has its origin in the DFID funded CATIA project, where we referred to those
beyond the Boundary stakeholders as Outer Stakeholders.
6
This possibility raises the related questions of: (a) how can the differences between
these three type of networks to be defined, and (b) how important is that the
differences be defined.
Two criteria have been provisionally proposed, because they have consequences for
planning and evaluation:
o Actors involved in the internal network will have contractual relationships which
formalise their objectives and the terms of conditions under which they work
together. These may be in the form of employment contracts, consultancy
contracts or funding agreements.
o Actors involved in the outer network may be known to those in the internal
network, but they will not be in direct contact. They will be known about through
others who are within the boundary network.
o Actors involved in the boundary network will be in direct contact with those in the
internal network, but not in a contractual relationship. They will also be in contact
with those in the outer network, via various forms of relationships.
Implications for monitoring and evaluation tasks
If these differences between the three types of networks are significant then they will
have some consequences, such as the type of monitoring and evaluation activities
that need to be undertaken within each network. Three different tasks can be
identified as especially relevant to each of the different networks
o Discovery, within the Outer Network
o Alignment, within the Boundary Network
o Implementation, within the Internal Network
Within the Outer Network the challenge for the Intervening Organisation is one of
discovery: to find out who is involved, who has a relationship with whom, and the
nature of their relationships. And how they all link up with any actors who might be
the Final Clients of concern. Discovery tasks including identification of power
relationships as well as the extent of any shared interested and objectives. Here the
basic evaluation questions focus on the accuracy and adequacy of that
understanding. These can be explored though (a) comparisons of the views of
different actors (within the internal and boundary networks), and (b) comparisons with
information obtained from direct contact with some of the actors in the Outer
Network, made in the context of subsequent evaluation events, for example.
This sort of discovery can also be undertaken at a larger scale. A common interest in
social network analysis is the analysis of clusters. These are larger groups of actors,
which are highly interconnected, but sparsely connected to other groups of actors5.
Within the Boundary Network the actors involved are known and direct contact has
been made with them (by definition). Here the challenge is one of alignment: to
identify where objectives are conflicting, irrelevant or complementary. And then how
to improve alignment, where needed and possible. Alignment may be at different
levels, ranging from broad agreement about overall objectives, to detailed
agreement, about specific objectives, activities needed to achieve them, the success
of those activities to date, and what corrections are now needed. Authority
5
A clique in network analysis is a group of actors all of whom are connected to each other, but less
densely connected to others. A cluster is a group of actors who are more connected to each other, than
others, but not necessarily fully connected with each other as in a clique
7
relationships within the boundary network are likely to be complex and not always
explicit, in comparison to the situation within internal networks governed by
contractual relationships.
Within the Inner Network all the actors are known, there is direct contact, and some
stability of relationships. The latter is likely to be reflected in contracts, either
individual employment contracts, or partnerships contracts between organisations,
which may be supported by funding transfers. In this context objectives and priorities
can more often be taken as givens because there is some form of authority structure
or agreed decision making process. In this context the challenge is one of
implementation: how to articulate plans into operational details, and successfully
implement them. Here the basic evaluation question is then how do achievements
relate to objectives.
It could be argued that as the scale of the social systems which are of concern to
program planners increases, the proportions of actors in these three types of
networks tends to change, with increasing proportions being in the Outer and
Boundary networks. Thus the focus of evaluation concerns probably needs to move
more towards discovery and alignment, relative to implementation.
Generic implications
There are also some more generic implications of this actor-centred approach that
apply across the three network perspectives. The published version of the Seville
paper (Davies, 2005) concluded with the following points about the practical
implications of a network perspective.
"First, different types of planning choices are highlighted. These are not just about what we
do, but who do we work with. In development aid projects one of the most crucial decisions
made, usually at the project planning and appraisal stage, is who will implement the project in
cooperation with whom…"
"Second, objectives cannot be taken as predefined givens. In a network where power is not
manifestly centralized it is more appropriate to see agreement over objectives as an
achievement, and something to be tracked over time and evaluated. Even in explicit
hierarchies there is often a substantial amount of persuasion and negotiation over objectives
and priorities…"
"Third, information about distant changes cannot be made available by command. When it
does become available this is because there is some degree of fit between the objectives of
adjacent actors. This sounds like the real world: where aid agencies are dependent on their
field officers who are dependent on their local partners who are dependent on their field
offices who are dependent on local community leaders . . . for their information about impacts
on the ground. If information is not available, then attention needs to be paid to where there
are differences of view, and their effects. This is a more symptomatic view of information. It
contrasts with the engineering approach prevalent in much of the M&E literature and certainly
emphasized by the Logical Framework, where the Means of Verification column typically
refers to the material source of data, but not to who will provide it."
"Fourth, because all information is embodied, information is needed not just about distant
changes, but also about who holds and provides that information. A networked view implies
more attention to meta-monitoring: asking what people know (and don’t know) and what that
means. A greater emphasis on meta-monitoring should itself help aid agencies cope with the
problems of scale, the initial problem posed by the first paper. For example, both the ILO and
DFID (among others) have global targets relating to the number of people who will benefit
from their interventions. Both organizations work directly with national governments, and
these bodies can be expected to know what is happening to the policies and practices of
8
those governments. But neither organization works directly with poor people. Their knowledge
of poor people’s lives is much more highly mediated. In both cases it would be more
appropriate for the two agencies to be measuring the numbers of governments who are able
to report specific types of changes in the number of people in poverty, or children in child
labour: for example, achievements above or below their national targets, and the scale of
those targets compared to a global ideal target. Apart from being easier to obtain, it is those
governments’ knowledge (or the lack of knowledge) of desired changes that is as significant
as the simple facts of these changes. It is this knowledge that is very likely to affect the
sustainability and replicability of change."
The limitations of a three networks perspective
The distinctions made between the three network perspectives are not categorical
differences, rather they involve matters of degree. People who attend a workshop
organised by a project would normally be considered as members of the boundary
network. But if they have to pay an attendance fee to attend the workshop they have
become involved in a contract, transient as it is. So, at that period of time they are
within the internal network. People who one has met only once are notionally within
one’s boundary network, transient as that contact may have been. But thereafter,
most of one’s knowledge about them is likely to come from other members in one’s
boundary network. In that period they are effectively within the outer network. These
examples suggest that in place of a clear categorical difference we can see a
continuum of permanency to transience in an actor’s status as a member of any one
of the three types of networks. There is also a second and less tangible dimension
involved. This involves the degree of depth or detail in the relationships. Contracts
may be exhaustive or superficial in their contents, so can the once-off contacts with
individuals who would otherwise be seen as part of the outer network.
The same type of caveat applies to the implications for monitoring and evaluation.
The differences in the M&E tasks that need to be addressed in each of the three
networks are not categorical. Even within the Internal network one needs to identify
who is working with whom, and whose interests are aligned with whom, and not. But
in most cases these issues can be expected to have already been addressed, and
normally it can be expected that the focus should be on implementation.
In the sections that follow some methods will be outlined whereby a larger set of
network perspectives can be documented, providing more locally relevant detail, but
still enabling the construction of a comprehensive overview.
4. Describing networks
Matrices and network diagrams
Network diagrams, such as the one used above, are a good means of giving a quick
overview of the structure of a network of actors. Different sizes, shapes and colours
can be used to represent different characteristics of the actors, and their connections
with each other. However such diagrams don’t provide much room for text or
numerical description of the actors and their inter-relationships.
In the field of social network analysis both network diagrams and matrices are used
as complementary means of representing the structure of social networks (Scott,
9
2001). Diagrams can visually summarise matrices and matrices can detail network
diagrams. Excel's Draw function can be used to construct small and simple networks.
Free software such as Ucinet enables the construction of larger and more complex
networks, from data represented in matrix form, and other easy-to-enter formats
(Borgatti, et al, 2002). Alternately, Visone enables the conversion of hand-drawn
network diagrams into matrix form (Visone, 2004). More recently, new software such
as Visualyzer (2005) has become available which is both user friendly and
comprehensive in its capacities, but it is not free of charge.
The network diagram shown in Figure 1 above is represented in matrix form below,
following the conventions used in social network analysis. That is: the contents of a
cell refer to something that comes from the row actor and goes to the column actor.
Cells with the value of 1 indicate that a linkage exists from the actor in that cell’s row
to the actor in that cell’s column. In this example matrix I have provided some
additional colour coding: (a) of the types of actors (in the row and column headings),
according to the main categories as shown in the network diagram, and (b) of the
three types of networks these actors are involved in (within the cells of the matrix).
In many circumstances relationships will be bi-directional, not one way. So, the link
from the Intervening Organisation in row 1.6 to the Immediate Partner shown in
column 3 will also be reciprocated by link between the Immediate Partner shown in
row 3 and the Intervening Organisation in column 1.6. Even when the two directional
nature of relationships are acknowledged, this matrix will still be an oversimplification. It will simply say that particular relationships exist, it says nothing about
its details, its frequency, quality, or significance.
Figure 3: The three network perspectives represented in one matrix
Link to
1.1.
Link from
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.1.
1.2
1.3
1
1
1
1.2
1
1
1
1.3
1
1
1
1.4
1.5
2
1
INNER NETWORK
1.6
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
1
2
1
3
4
9
1
BOUNDARY NETWORK
1
1
5
1
6
1
1
7
1
1
8
1
1
9
10
OUTER NETWORK
11
1
12
13
1
14
15
16
1
1
1
1
1
10
More useful detail can be included in matrices by using numbers in cells to:




Code different categories of relationships: e.g. funding relationships, advisory
relationships, or both
Represent numbers: e.g. the age of relationships or the frequencies of
interactions in a given period
Represent percentages: e.g. of time or financial resources allocated to each
relationship, by each actor shown in each row.
Represent differences in the rank order: e.g. of the importance of the
relationship, with each actor as shown in each row, or the ability of one actor
to influence another.
An example matrix is shown in Figure 4 below. This is taken from a study of the
workings of the Port of Chittagong in Bangladesh, by Ahmed, Hassan, and Ladbury
(2004). In this example, cell contents are coded to describe the existence, quality and
potential of relationships between the actors.
Still this may not do justice to the complexity of the relationships involved. Another
solution, that is only feasible with matrices that do not involve large numbers of
actors, is to insert text into each cell describing the nature of the relationship. This
device was used by Temul (2001) in his network analysis of agricultural innovation
systems in Azerbaijan.
Matrices versus tables: As shown above, a matrix has two axes, or dimensions. The
cells in the matrix describe the relationships between the two dimensions. Where the cell
contents simply provide different forms of information about items listed in the rows these
are better described as tables, rather than matrices. Social network analysis matrices are
also different from matrices as often used by management consultants (e.g. Lowy and
Hood, 2004), to describe different possible combinations of strategies. These are usually
much smaller in size (e.g. 2 x 2) and might be better described as a type of truth table.
Different types of matrices
Within the Social Network Analysis literature a basic distinction is made between two
types of matrices (Scott, 2002):
o
Adjacency matrices, which show actors x actors. This is the most common
form of matrix used, and examples have been given above in Figures 4 and
5. These are always symmetric, because the same actors are shown across
the top row and down the left column (as in the examples above)
o
Affiliation matrices6, which show actors x specific events. For example,
development agencies may be linked by their participation in the same donor
coordination meetings. These are often asymmetric because the number of
events may be more or less than the number of actors involved.
In this paper I will make use of a further distinction between different types of
adjacency matrices that can provide different scale magnifications of what is going on
within each of the three main network perspectives I have already mentioned above.
They are:
6
Also called Incident matrices
11
12
Figure 4: Matrix representation of relationships between actors in the port of Chittagong
xx
xxx
xx
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
xxx
xx
xxx
xx
x
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
x
x
N
xx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
x
xxx
xx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
x
xx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
O
Contractor/Middlemen
M
Jetty/Custom Sarker
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xxx
x
xxx
N
Private Container Depots
xxx
xx
M
Truck Owners Assoc
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
xx
xxx
L
Truck Drivers Assoc.
xxx
xxx
K
Merchant Labours
xxx
x
J
Trade Unions
I
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
H
BGMEA
G
Political Parties
F
CBA
Customs
DWMB
x
xxx
xxx
E
Shipping Agent/Lines
xxx
xx
xx
xx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
D
C&F Agents
Chittagong Port Authority (CPA)
Stevedors
DWMB
Customs
CBA
Importer/Exporter
C&F Agents
Shipping Agent/Lines
Political Parties
BGMEA
Trade Unions
Merchant Labours
Truck Drivers Assoc.
Truck Owners Assoc
Private Container Depots
Jetty/Custom Sarker
Contractor/Middlemen
C
Importer/Exporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
B
Stevedors
Chittagong Port Authority
(CPA)
A
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
xxx
xxx
No stars - No institutioal relationship
x - Know of each other
xx - Interact
xxx - Regular and effective interaction.
Light grey squares show opposition between stakeholders
Deep grey squares show support which could be strengthened to enhance Chittagong Port
13
o
All-to-All matrices. These might show all the organisational actors in the Inner
Network and their relationship with each other. Or they might show all the actors
in the Boundary Network, and their relationships with each other, including those
they are in contact within the Intervening Organisation.
o
One-to-All matrices: These can show the details of the relationship between one
actor and other actors, with rows representing the different dimensions of the
relationship the one actor has with the other actors. For example, as shown in
Figure 2 above, within the Boundary Network a number of organisations may use
the various outputs provided by one organisation. At a smaller scale, within the
Inner Network, one-to-all matrices can show details of the relationship between
one staff members, and all others. Or, within the Outer Network, a one-to-one
matrix might show how different actors are expected to relate to the Final
Client(s), with rows showing different types of relationship with the Final Client(s).
One-to-all matrices are useful for detailing what the social network analysis
literature calls the multiplex nature of human relationship. People are able to
engage in many kinds of relationships with others.
o
One to One matrices: These can show the details of the different kinds of
relationship between two organisations. Such as the relationships between their
objectives or outputs (e.g. catalytic, consistent, conflicting or non-existent).
Where these matrices list the staff of both organisations they are effectively a
small scale and local version of an All-to-All matrix. This sort of matrix may be
useful in the case of two large organisations having a range of contacts with each
other. For example, a large British NGO and its Programme Partnership
Agreement based relationship with the Department for International
Development, both within the UK and within the developing countries where they
both work.
One-to-all matrices are of special interest because they enable a bridge to be
constructed between analyses at different levels of scale. The side of the matrix
dealing with the one actor is more micro in focus, whereas the side of the matrix
dealing with multiple actors interacting with that one actor is more macro in scale.
Affiliation matrices
As noted above, an affiliation matrix can show how actors are connected to each
other through common events. For example, via participation in the same types of
planning groups or committees. Because these matrices have two different
dimensions: actors and events, it is possible to convert them in to two types of
adjacency matrices. One showing how each actor is connected to each actor (by
participating in the same event). The other showing how each event is connected to
each event (by overlapping members)7. With small sets of data this conversion can
be done manually, and with larger sets of data the conversion can be done using
Ucinet.
7
These two types of connections have been referred to as co-membership and event overlap See
http://ed.stanford.edu/~mcfarland/Lectures/Networks_affiliation.ppt
14
We can take idea of an affiliation matrix a step further by acknowledging that actors
can be connected to each other by human objects as well as human events8. For
example, plans and policy documents that both actors have helped develop, or which
they are now supporting, or using. Following the explanation in the paragraph above,
we can create separate matrices showing how these actors are linked to each other
(via supporting common policy documents) and how policy documents are linked to
each other (by having common supporting actors). A third matrix can also be
constructed, which in my experience can sometimes be the most useful. This is a
matrix where actors and objects are both listed as “actors” in an adjacency matrix
and the resulting network diagrams show how actors are connected via objects, and
vice versa. These are sometimes referred to as heterogeneous networks9. Examples
will be given below.
We can take a network perspective on human objects even further. Policy documents
can, and often do, have overlapping contents. An example is the overlap between
policy documents in their use of indicators. The 2003-2005 Ghana Poverty Reduction
Strategy M&E Plan includes a three-page table showing the relationship between
four policy documents x 52 indicators. This is a type of affiliation matrix, with policy
documents as the notional "actors". This example is discussed further in section 6
below.
There are grounds for arguing that affiliation matrices are more interesting and more
useful than adjacency matrices. People often link to each other through events and
around objects. Development projects are full of events and objects that various
stakeholders think are important. These include policies and projects, objectives,
indicators, budgets, vehicles and buildings, locations, sectors, technologies, etc.
While this wider view of networks widens up the range of applications of a network
perspective, there needs to be an associated caveat. Especially, if their use is in the
context of planning, monitoring and evaluation of development programs. In the case
of actor networks we can verify their structure relatively easily, through our interaction
with the actors concerned. If we widen the conception of networks to include events
and objects, including documents and their contents, then it is important that we can
verify the structure of these types of networks. Information needs to be available,
either from those objects (if they are documents) and/or from people who know about
them (if they are events or documents).
Representing actor’s attributes as well as their relationships
Social network analysis has been differentiated from other social science approaches
by its emphasis on relationships between actors, as distinct from an emphasis on the
attributes of individual and groups of actors. Like many distinctions, this can be overemphasised. Social network analysis software (e.g. Ucinet, Visualyzer) now enables
representation of actor’s individual attributes as well their relationships with others.
For example, the age and gender of individuals, or the size or age of organisations.
As well as enabling sorting of actors based on these characteristics, network
diagrams can be built which include visual coding of these actor attributes (e.g. by
colour coding the nodes, and by varying the size and shape of the nodes).
8
There is a school of thinking about networks, known as actor-network-theory (ANT) that explicitly
includes objects as participants in networks. Although this sounds practical the way this useful notion
has then been taken forward in ANT tends to be the reverse - obscurely academic.
9 Though this terms is also often used to refer to networks with a diverse range of human actors
15
Even with manually constructed matrices we can build in the representation of actors’
attributes, in a way that adds value. We can do this by adding an extra column to the
right, and an extra row to the base of the matrix, both of which provide summary
values concerning the actors’ relationships with others (as shown in the cells of the
matrix). The extra column summarises each set of row values in the matrix, and the
extra row summarises each set of column values in the next. These additions can be
very useful when, for example, cell entries describe actors’ prioritisations of their
relationships with other actors, or their prioritisation of various policy objectives. Extra
columns can capture the average priority given to a particular policy, and the range of
those judgements. In matrices describing relationships between (Logical Framework)
Activities and Outputs described within a project document, the extra row and column
can contain budgeted expenditure totals, for both the Activities and Outputs. Some
examples of matrices using row and column totals will be shown below.
The use of row and column totals as sources of attributes of actors has some
relationship with the more mathematical dimensions of social network analysis. A
large range of mathematical measures have been developed to describe the ways in
which actors are located in networks, and the characteristics of whole networks.
These are all derived from the raw matrix data, as are the simple row and column
totals described above.
Representing the temporal dimension
The explicit structure of the Logical Framework gives priority to representing changes
over time: Activities lead to Outputs, which lead to Purpose level changes, which lead
to Goal level changes. The social structure of the Logical Framework is there in more
implicit form, but it has to be drawn out, as shown above.
A network perspective gives priority to social structures first of all. However, planned
or expected changes in those structures can be represented, within network
diagrams and matrices. There are a number of different ways of doing this, which
vary in the extent to which they emphasise the temporal dimension.
Firstly, within network diagrams the age of existing links, and the presence of
expected new links, can be colour coded. Within network matrices, the same
information can be represented in the relevant cells either numerically, or in text, or
by cell shading. The latter approach was used in the matrix shown in Figure 4 above,
where cells were shaded to indicate possible future changes.
Secondly, the temporal dimension can be given higher visibility by using it as a basis
for the listing of actors, events or objects in matrix. For example, the outputs in an
outputs x immediate partners matrix can be listed in their expected chronological
order of delivery. This has been done in one part of a DFID-funded development
project, where I have had an external monitoring role.
Thirdly, the past, current and future status of actors (or objects or events) can be
represented on the two separate dimensions of matrices. Existing programs can be
shown as row entities, and the cell entries can describe their expected relationships
with future objectives, shown as column entities. This option provides an important
bridging function between representations of the past and the future; in the same way
that one-to-many matrices enables bridging between different scales of
representation.
16
Time can be given higher priority still, by using it as the second dimension in
matrices. In an actors x time matrix, cells can describe specific events. One event
can notionally linked to or from another by its position in a time sequence (before or
after). Whether it is or not in practice can then be the subject of planning and
monitoring efforts. A slightly hybrid form of representation, mixing the matrix and
network diagram forms, can then be developed by using the Draw function in Excel
to represent the links that are expected between specific events.
Looking further afield, it is worth noting that there has been work done in the field of
social network analysis on animated representations of social networks, showing how
they change structure over time. This form of technology seems way ahead of the
current technological capacities of many aid agencies, let alone their partners.
However, simpler technologies, such as the use of consecutive slides in PowerPoint
format, may be more practical. Visualyzer also provides this elementary capacity.
Reflecting back on the distinctions made between three types of network perspective,
it seems likely that the amount of detail that needs to be given to the temporal
dimension is likely to vary according to the scale of the current network perspective
that is in use. Within Inner Networks, where implementation is the focus, differences
between the timing of actor’s activities and outputs are likely to be important. Within
Boundary Networks the coordination of larger scale programs of activities may be of
more concern, either to ensure best fit, or minimum conflict. Within Outer Networks
the most important timing issues may be more to do with the establishment and
ending of relationships between the actors. As already noted above, these are likely
to be matters of degree, not categorical differences.
Matrices as building blocks
Building with matrices
It is possible to use affiliation and adjacency matrices at all scales of analysis, within
the Internal, Boundary and Outer Network perspectives. These matrices can be seen
as building blocks, which when combined with each other, can help create a larger
construction of what is going on. Two matrices can be considered to be connected
to each other if each matrix has one dimension in common: one common set of
entities represented in either their rows or columns. For example, within the context
of a social-ised Logical Framework, the following matrices could be used:
 An Activities x Outputs matrix
 An Outputs x Immediate Partners matrix
 An Immediate Partners x Other Actors matrix
17
Other supporting matrices could also be used to develop a bigger picture. For
example, a Budget lines x Outputs matrix and an Outputs x Time matrix (a revised
form of Gantt chart).
The modular use of matrices implies a two level planning process. The first level is
more macro, and involves the choice of what types of matrices to develop. As
indicated above, different types of matrices can be defined by the axes they use. An
associated planning task is deciding how these matrices should be linked, by what
common axes. The second level of planning is more micro-in focus. Here the focus is
on the content of individual matrices: the contents and ordering of each axis, and the
contents of the cells within the matrix. When both levels of planning are completed
there should be a visible trail of intentions, both at a macro level (between matrices)
and at a micro level (within each of these matrices).
Building individual matrices
In most social network analysis research individual matrices are themselves built up
from smaller units. These units are the rows of data, describing how a row actor is
linked to each column actor (or column event). This row data is often collected from
interviews with survey respondents. For example, they may be presented with a
roster of other actors or events and then asked about the nature of their relationship
with each actor or event. The responses of all the respondents are then aggregated
into a single actor x actor matrix.
Within organisations that I have worked with I have promoted the use of a variant on
this approach, to enable the construction of what would otherwise be seen as large
and complex matrices. Where documents or events are used as entities in a matrix
people can often be found within organisations who have a responsibility for these
documents or events. They can be interviewed about how these documents or
events do or should connect to others. Similarly, its is often possible to identify
people who are most expected to know about the relationships between particular
actors the intervening organisation may working with. In these situations their views
are effectively hypotheses, rather than facts, and they may need testing at some
stage. There appears to be some overlap here with a field of social network analysis
concerned with cognitive social networks, which may be worth exploring.
The fact that matrices can be built up from row data has a wider implication. It means
that a modular matrix approach is compatible with participatory approaches to
planning, monitoring and evaluation. Individual's plans, and reports on their progress
and achievement can all be documented, and then aggregated to create larger
pictures. Furthermore the aggregation process is one that respects individual's views,
retaining their separate identity, while at the same time producing an overall picture.
There is no inbuilt bias towards the construction of a consensus view. This potential
stands in contrast to the Logical Framework, where it is by no means obvious as to
how its contents could be constructed by a participatory process, or who should be
involved.
18
Aphorisms about Networks (Monge and Fulk, 2003)
Social Networks:
Its not what you know, its who you know
Cognitive Social Networks:
Its not who you know, its who you think they know.
Knowledge Networks:
Its not who you know, its what they know.
Cognitive Knowledge Networks:
Its not who you know, its what you think they know.
5. Developing a library of matrix modules
The purpose of this section is to provide a range of examples of the use of different
kinds of matrices, and associated network diagrams. They have been presented in
three groupings, relating to the three types of network perspective introduced earlier
in this paper. Those described below are probably a small part of a potentially much
larger public library of matrices that could be useful for planning, monitoring and
evaluation of development aid programmes.
Readers of this paper are encouraged to develop others, and share information
about their use and usefulness. What I am in effect proposing is a kind of “Open
Source10” approach to development of the modular matrix approach, in contrast to
one that emphasises proprietary ownership of methods. With this in mind I have set
up an emailing list (and associated file repository), for sharing experiences and filing
documented examples of the use of a modular matrix approach. See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ModularMatrixApproach/
Matrices within Internal Networks
Actors x Actors
The network diagram in Figure 5 below is based on an Actors x Actors matrix, which
itself was generated from an Actors X Events matrix. The actors are staff in a DFID
country program office. The "events" are working groups of staff who were assigned
to manage various individual projects. Staff were seen as being connected to each
other through their shared responsibilities for those projects. This description is a
normative description, of what should be happening, i.e. a plan.
It would be useful to follow up this plan, and to identify what was actually happening
in practice. This could be done by constructing a matrix of the actual contacts staff
had with each other in respect to the projects they were managing. This could be
done by interviewing individuals and presenting them with a list of projects. They
A Google sourced definition of open source: “In general, open source refers to any program whose
source code is made available for use or modification as users or other developers see fit. (Historically,
the makers of proprietary software have generally not made source code available.) Open source
software is usually developed as a public collaboration and made freely available.”
10
19
could be asked who they contacted the most to discuss each project. Or that
relationship could be analysed in more multiplex terms. By asking who do they
contact for x type of information about each project, and about y type of information
about each project, etc.
Figure 5
A substantial amount of research has been done on the relationship between
informal communications networks and formal organisation structures and some of
this is now available in a form that is accessible to non-specialists. Cross and
Parker's (2004) "The Hidden Power Of Social Networks: Understanding How Work
Really Gets Done In Organizations" provides many examples of network analyses in
forms that would be equally applicable in many development aid organisations.
Actors x Objectives
In the same country program the country strategy document listed a set of five main
objectives that were closely related to that country’s national Poverty Reduction
Strategy. These objectives were in turn broken down into a number of sub-objectives.
Each of the development projects within the country program were then assigned to
one of the sub-objectives.
The sub-objectives were not only linked up to the objectives, they were also linked to
each other, because of over-laps in the staff who were responsible for projects
addressing each sub-objective. However these linkages were more historical,
reflecting past decisions made about project responsibilities, as new staff came, and
prior staff left. This raised the possibility that the connections created between subobjectives in the country strategy, through overlapping staff responsibilities for
different projects, may not match how those groups should be related, in terms of
their common strategic objectives. The staffing structure and structure of strategic
objectives could easily become out of alignment
20
The network diagram in Figure 6 below was constructed out of an actors x subobjectives matrix. In this diagram the thickness of the links represents the scale of
the overlap in staff of both groups. The network nodes (sub-objectives) have been
colour coded to represent two of the main objectives: Good Governance and MacroEconomic Growth11. It is clear that in the case of the Trade sub-objective it was more
closely aligned with Governance main objective, than the Macro-Economy main
objective that it was supposed to belong to.
Figure 6
Objectives x Programs
In 2005 the Government of Vietnam was in the process of developing its next 5-year
plan, for the 2006-2010 period. I was involved in helping ensure that the draft plan
(and associated Ministry specific sector plans) addressed monitoring and evaluation
issues, from the beginning. My focus was on the internal structure of the draft plans,
and then hopefully, then on the structure of linkages between these and other
subsequent documents (budgets, annual revisions of plans etc). In both cases I
emphasised the need to establish "a visible trail of intentions", within and between
the documents.
In workshops with individual Ministries I involved staff in the construction of two
matrices, one of which was an Objectives x Programs matrix. This matrix listed the
high level objectives for the Ministry, as they had been defined in the current fiveyear plan, down the left side12. Across the top row it listed the Programs as owned
and managed by different sections of the Ministry during this period. A program was
11
Data was not currently available on project and staff assigned to the sub-objectives for the other three
main objectives in the country strategy
12 This was a mistake. The social network analysis convention is that cell entries should signal links from
row entities to column entities
21
defined as a bundle of resources with someone in charge, within the Ministry. I then
asked the workshop participants to consider one program at a time, and examine to
what extent, if at all, it was likely to have an impact on the achievement of each of the
listed objectives. Participants responded by choosing a rating from 0-3, indicating
none (0), versus some (1), a fair amount (2) and a lot (3) of likely impact. One
Ministriy's "first draft" matrix is shown in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7
Main Programs of the Ministry - at present
Main Objectives: New 5year plan
1. Increasing rate of skilled
labourers
2. Increasing ratio of hightech labourers
Program
Enterprise on Job
Program
creation
Program
on HEPR
Program
on
Protection
of most
difficultChildren
Assistance
to
disadvant- Labour
aged
Safety
People
Program
Program
on Drug
Addict
Treatment
Total
Impacts
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
5
3. Creating more jobs
5. Reducing numbers of
poor households
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
11
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
12
6. Decreasing poor-rich gap
4. Minimizing work
accidents
7. Reducing numbers of
drug-addicts
2
2
3
0
0
1
0
8
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
6
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
8
Total Impacts
14
11
11
5
4
7
7
Some participants questioned the exercise, pointing out that these linkages might not
exist. My response was to agree, in part. What we could do is treat them as
hypotheses or plans, which would subsequently need to be tested. We could look to
see if the programs had monitoring and evaluation plans which addressed the
expected areas of impact, then whether they had any data on each expected area of
impact, and then whether that data supported the claims of relative expected impact
across the chosen objectives.
During the workshops it was pointed out that the results of the matrix planning
needed to be examined from three perspectives.:
 The distribution of values within the cells. For example, were there any linkages
that should exist, but which did not exist? Or were too many linkages being claimed
which were unlikely to be substantiated, even at the level of having monitoring
procedures in place?
 The row totals. How many programs was each Objective being addressed by,
and was this acceptable? The total “score” for each Objective could be seen as a
crude reflection of the relative priority being given to the different objectives, by the
current composition of the Ministry’s programs
 The column totals: How many Objectives did each Program address, and was
this acceptable? Were programs that tried to do everything necessarily a good
investment? And were programs that only targeted one objective failing to pay
attention to wider possible impacts?
The total scores given to each main objective in the above matrix are clearly a crude
measure of their relative important, given the current set of programs. Some
programs may be much larger than others, so it could be argued that their scores
22
should be given more weight. This argument was addressed by adding an extra row
at the base showed the total current annual cost of each program. Cell ratings were
then re-cast as points out of 100 (aka percentage values, of each program's budget).
An extra column was then added to the far right of the matrix. Each cell in this
column then showed the total amount invested in that row objective. This was the
sum of the values of each cell in that row (being a % of each program cost below).
In both versions of the matrix, calculated with the 0-3 ratings and percentage cell
scores, participants were told they had a number of options, if they did not like the set
of priorities that came out in the far right column. They could:
 Change the formulation of the objectives, so that new linkages had to be
created with programs
 Change the design of the programs, so that new linkages had to be created
with objectives.
 Change the amount invested in the different programs, so that their effects on
the different objectives changed.
There were two interesting features about the Objectives x Programs matrix. They
acted as a bridge in two different ways. Firstly, the matrix linked the past with the
future, because the Programs were existing programs, whereas the Objectives were
those proposed for the upcoming 5-year plan. Secondly, the matrix linked the micro
with the macro. The programs were components within a Ministry, but the objectives
were those of the whole Ministry. In a plenary workshop attended by all the
participating Ministries, the same matrix was created, but on a larger scale again.
Here the individual Ministries were listed as the “programs” and the objectives were
the objectives of the Government’s 5 year Socio-Economic Development Plan, which
covered multiple Ministries.
A much simpler example of an Objectives x Programs matrix was found online in the
Annual Report of the Australian Government's Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation (FRDC) website13. A matrix was provided showing FRDC Programs (3) x
"Priorities for rural R&D", for the government as a whole (7). The matrix showed that
the three main programs were each addressing between 2 to 4 policy priorities. Ticks
in the relevant cells indicated these linkages (9 in all). Elsewhere in the report other
data was available to provide a more detailed description of these relationships.
Estimations had been made of the amount spent on each policy priority, by
aggregating expenditure data on the projects contained with each program. These
calculations highlighted some major differences, most notably that one policy priority
was receiving 77% of the FRDC's research investment, and another policy priority
had received none at all in the last financial year (though one program had a tick
showing a relationship to this policy priority). It was not clear if this was a planned
outcome or not.
Activities x Activities
Many activities taking place within organisations are parts of business processes.
Business processes are re-iterated sequences of activities that are designed to
produce a product or service, for clients within or outside the organisation. Grant
making with large international NGOs are a type of business process.
One NGO I have been working with was in the process of revising the design of its
grant making process, prior to entering a new two year funding cycle. Different
13
Identified because it is another organisation I have been working with as an M&E consultant.
23
sections of the process were being revised, by different people, with one person in
charge of the overall process. Like many other funding NGO, their model of the
process was a linear sequence, starting with a public invitation for submissions, and
ending with grant disbursement (reporting etc, then followed on). I suggested that a
network model might be more appropriate. This would be different in two ways.
Firstly, a given step would not only effect the next step but it could also effect other
steps down the line. For example a strategy document outlining the aims of the
current grant making cycle will not only affect the content of a call for Expressions of
Interest, but also the design of Terms of Reference for evaluations of projects that
are subsequently funded. Secondly, a given step could and should have some
feedback effects on earlier steps. For example, the experience of appraising Full
Proposals may have some implications for the re-design of the earlier process used
to screen the initial Expressions of Interest. Or, an evaluation may have implications
for the design of periodic progress reports to be submitted by funded projects.
There are a number of ways of representing business processes as networks. In this
instance, the way I proposed was to use a document x document matrix. Almost all
the important steps in the grant making cycle had documents as inputs and
documents as outputs. And documents were the focus of the current design revision
process. I developed a draft documents x documents matrix, using a list of the
documents I was aware of as being involved in the grant making process. These
documents were listed in chronological order of their production and use, during the
grant making cycle. This is one of the options for representing time in matrices, which
is mentioned earlier in this paper. I then found a person who was responsible for one
of the listed documents, and “walked” her along the row that represented her
document. In each cell, connecting to each column, I asked if this document should
be influencing the document in the column or not. If so, was it doing so adequately. If
not, how could the linkage be improved.
My intention is to do the same process with each of the “minders” of each of the other
documents, as soon as their responsibility for each document is clarified. We should
be able to end up with a matrix where cells are (a) colour coded to show connections
being present and absent, and (b) text within those cells showing where
improvements are needed. That matrix could be converted to a network diagram if
these features were then re-coded into numerical form, indicating the relative
importance of the connections in each row. But at this stage a matrix is more useful,
especially one highlighting what changes are needed where.
The proposed completed matrix will also have on the right side a “row summary” that
says who is the minder for the document shown on each row. This gives us the
potential to create another matrix showing documents x actors. This is potentially
very useful because it points out who needs to be in contact with who, to keep the
revision process on track.
The allocation of minder responsibilities to different people for different documents
raises the possibilities of the grant making process being seen as a “complex
adaptive process”, rather than as a centrally planned and managed process (Axelrod
and Cohen, 1999). That is, various documents could be revised at different times,
depending on the initiative of their minder. All they need to do is talk to the people
minding the documents their documents are expected to influence. Instead of central
planning there would be various local processes of mutual adjustment.
There are two possible constraints on the frequency with which such local
adaptations could occur. One is the density of the document network. If many
documents are linked to many documents, mutual local adjustments will be more
24
time consuming, because of the number of connections that need to be renegotiated. Secondly, some of the documents link to external actors (grantees)
Those linkages are less amendable to local mutual adjustment, because contracts
are involved, and transaction costs of meetings are higher. The constraints on these
external links is likely flow on to other internal linkages between documents, limiting
the extent to which they can be revised as well.
A third type of constraint may be helpful to steer the process. That is agreement on
the desired performance characteristics of the component documents, that all
minders should seek to optimise, when improving their documents and their linkages
to others. Some of these have been discussed, but are yet to be agreed upon. They
include simplicity of use, time required to complete, timeliness of completion, and
transparency.
This approach to business process mapping starts with observable entities then
maps their relationships. As such it seems to have some practical advantages over
attempts to break down business processes using a more abstract conception of
what processes are (Darton and Darnton, 1997), which are both more complex and
less tangible.
Figure 8 below shows a similar matrix documents x documents recently developed
by another grant making body. In this case the documents list is wider in ambit, not
exclusively focus on grant making. Expected linkages between documents have
been identified, but not yet prioritised. Column and row totals are given in red,
indicating the number of connections to and from each document.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Contract Package
Assessment Package
Application
Expression of Interest
Media & Publications
External Audit
XXXX Mid-Term Review Rpt
Consultancy Reports
M&E Report
XXXX Yearly ICB Reports
XXXX Financial Reports
XXXX Progress Reports
XXXX Annual Reports
Event papers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
20
YYY Convention Report
Programme Memo Brief
XXXX Logical Framework
Programme Memorandum
Brochure
Bulletin
Source Docs
a.1 Website
a.2 Bulletin
a.3 Brochure
b.1 Programme Memorandum
b.3 XXXX Logical Framework
b.4 Programme Memo Brief
c.1 YYY Convention Report
c.2 Event Papers
d.1 XXXX Annual Reports
d.2 XXXX Progress Reports
d.3 XXXX Financial Reports
d.4 XXXX Yearly ICB Reports
d.5 M&E Report
e.1 Consultancy Reports
e.2 XXXX Mid-Term Review Rpt
e.3 External Audit
e.4 Media & Publications
f.1 Call for Expr. of Interest
f.2 Expression of Interest
f.3 Application
f.4 Assessment Package
g.1 Contract Package
Totals
O utput docs
Website
PRODUCTS
Call for Expr. of Interest
Figure 8
1
3
6
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
16
11
17
1
4
1
3
4
1
2
0
19
2
2
6
9
4
8
6
3
4
5
6
7
10
13
5
5
7
5
5
3
8
Budget Inputs x Outputs
Budgets are usually constructed around a series of categories that are meaningful to
the organisation concerned. Some of those categories are derived from accounting
practice, and may be intended to make it easier to account for how money has been
25
spent. Other categories will often reflect what the money is being spent for. These
may reflect broad aims of the organisation, or more specific bundles of activities. The
choice of category structure is important because it can communicate, and thus reemphasise and orient, the organisation’s strategy, to its staff, donors and others.
Often organisations try to do this by using a nested set of categories, with broad
organisational objectives at the high level, and specific spending details at the lower
levels of the category structure. This is a compromise that often does not work well,
because many activities will typically feed into many objectives. For example, the
renting of office premises. They don’t necessarily fit within one branch of the nested
set of accounting categories, feeding into one set of organisational objectives only.
I have tried to address this problem by adopting a more network perspective, in the
context of helping a Government agency design and submit a funding proposal sent
to a donor. A matrix was designed which listed budget lines on the left side, using
relative standard accounting categories like staff, consumerables, equipment etc.
These were the proposed inputs into the Department during the funding period.
Across the top were listed all the expected outputs, which the Department would be
expected to generate, using the funds that the donor provides. The row totals
showed the amount allocated to each budget line. The cell contents in that row
showed the breakdown of that figure, in terms of how much was expected to be
invested in the production of each output (in each column). Different outputs required
different types of staff and consultant contributions. But overhead costs were more
likely to be constant across outputs.
Given the cell contents are known it was then possible to calculate the total cost of
each output. This is something that is rarely done systematically in aid programmes,
but it has its value. Firstly, it brings us down to earth with a realisation of the scale of
the total costs involved in each output. Secondly it provides a form of de facto
prioritisation, which can lead to reflection on current plans. Each output has a
different cost value. Ideally these costs would be aligned with our view of their
relative importance as outputs. Where they are not some reflection is needed to see
if the exceptions are justified, or not.
Outputs x Time
After the above Budget Inputs x Outputs matrix was produced, a related Outputs x
Time matrix was developed. This was very similar to a Gantt chart, except the left
side of the matrix listed identifiable Outputs, rather than internal activities. The top
side of the matrix showed time, in month units, similar to a Gantt chart. The cells
contained acronyms, which were spelled out under the matrix. The acronyms
described the outputs, and milestones towards their achievement. The linkages
described in this matrix were quite modest, simply the co-incidence and sequencing
of events.
In a similar matrix, for another grant making project, linkages between events shown
in the cells were drawn more explicitly (using the Excel draw function), showing what
events were expected to feeding to what other events. This is similar to the
conventional use of Gantt charts, where critical dependencies are shown though
linkages between events. However, in this case all the expected linkages were
shown, not just those that could be seen as absolutely essential. In practice it was a
hybrid matrix & network diagram. It complemented another matrix which showed the
Outputs x Outputs. The Outputs x Time matrix highlights the temporal nature of the
26
links, and where trouble might occur. The Outputs x Outputs matrix highlights the
details of each connection in terms of information flow and influence.
Figure 9
Board-PMT relations
Reporting lines
Information flows
Ongoing / shifts
M & E Reporting Gantt chart
M&E Reporting Events
2004
Oct
2005
Nov
Dec
Jan
AB: XXX Advisory Board
PMT: Program Management Team
Blue:
Financial reporting
Oranges:
Narrative reporting
FC: Funders Committee
MTR: Mid-Term Review
Purples:
Grant process
Greens:
Outward events
Feb
Aug
2006
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Fin. Reporting YYY to PMT
Fin. Reporting PMT to LTS
Fin. Reporting LTS to DFID
Annual External Audits
PMT
YYY
PMT
Third Party ICB Reporting
Narr. Reporting YYY to PMT
Narr. Reporting PMT to FC/AB
Advisory Board Meetings
Annual Reviews
plan
AB
AB
AB
Mid-Term Review
AB
MTR
Assessment of new YYYs
1
Funders Committee
2
FC
Disbursements to YYYs
FC
plan
3
FC
FC
call
YYY Conventions
FC
actual
call
plan
1
call
2
Newsletters
Website
Learning Events
as they arrise
Preparatory studies
Consultancy reports
as they arise
gender
Other potentially useful matrices
The choice of example matrices described above is opportunistic. They have all been
developed to address specific problems in specific circumstances. They have not
been developed to form part of a coherent overall package that can then be used as
a whole.
On reflection there are a few “missing” matrices that could be useful. In that they
would help create linkages between those already presented above, and because
they should be useful in themselves. One would be an Actors x Outputs matrix. Cell
entries could code:
 Who has lead responsibility for each Output and who has a supporting roles. By
colour coding the cells, or a number code
 The amount of time each person would put into each output.
Row totals would identify where the burden of responsibility lay, in terms of day spent
per person and lead responsibility roles. Column totals would identify the breadth of
staff involvement in each output, and the total amount of time invested in each
output. Two network diagrams could then be produced from the matrix. One would
show which outputs were most closely linked to which other outputs, based on
overlapping team involvement. That may or may not fit our view of the similarity of
content and purpose of those outputs. The second would highlight who is likely to be
interacting with whom most frequently, based on their overlapping responsibility for
specific outputs. Again that view would need to be tested against other knowledge,
such as the other commitments these actors might also have.
Another potentially useful set of matrices would be a problems x problems matrix and
an associated problems x actors matrix. This possibility arose in discussions with a
colleague who is testing the applicability of Sen's (1998) "Development As Freedom "
27
approach to development in a municipality in Egypt14. In a pilot project a group of
women are progressively identifying and trying to resolve a series of problems
relating to their felt needs. Those problems are interlinked web (with many causal
loops), but also an expanding list, as new ones are discovered as earlier ones are
resolved. It has been proposed that the current list of perceived problems could be
presented in a matrix format, with their list order expressing a current view of their
priority as concerns. Across each row, the causal connections with other problems
could be identified, one at a time, and where a given problem influences more than
one other, those connections will be prioritised according to their importance.
Problems which influence many others will be of particular concern. As new problems
emerge, they will be added to the matrix, on the bottom row and right column, and
their linkages with the other existing problems, detailed. The second matrix will then
show the connection between problems and actors (the women concerned), to clarify
the extent to which each problem is owned by the women in the group, and to make
it clear who might be best to talk to about that problem.
This infant proposal has obvious linkages with the early stage of a normative
approach to project design, where problem trees are used to articulate what is
problematic, and then their contents are inverted into a hierarchy of objectives, which
is then used to construct a Logical Framework (DFID, 2002). There are however, at
least three important differences. The problem x problem matrix specifically allows for
feedback loops between problems, whereas in most uses of problems trees they are
an afterthought, possible, but not central to the process. Secondly, the problem x
problem matrix is open to ongoing use, as the project progress. The problem tree is
less evidently so. Thirdly, the problem x problem matrix can be clearly linked to the
stakeholders involved, through the associated problems x actors matrix. In contrast,
ownership of problem trees, and their connections to any stakeholder process are
much less clear.
Matrices within Boundary Networks
Most organisations produce some form of outputs that are usable by others, products
or services of some kind. In development aid programmes these outputs are what
organisations are most likely to be held fully accountable for, as distinct form wider
outcomes where their activities may only be a contributing factor. Nevertheless, I
continue to be surprised to see how little systematic record keeping is done of the
users of their services. And even more so, how little analysis is done of the data that
is collected. As a result, my almost automatic recommendation to programs I am
working with is to keep a single database showing who has used what service or
product.
Outputs X Actors
The most basic form of analysis involves the construction of an outputs x actors
matrix. Ideally, such a matrix will list intended as well as actual outputs, intended as
well as actual users. This was the case in the matrix the independent M&E team
recommended to the component managers of the CATIA ICT project15. In the
matrices used by one component I was working with, all the planned outputs were
listed chronologically down the left column, and all the intended users of those
outputs were listed across the top row. In this type of matrix the empty cells will
convey information, along with the cells that have values. The G-RAP project is in the
14
15
Jane Samuels, see http://www.removingunfreedoms.org/home.htm
See http://www.catia.ws/
28
process of developing a similar matrix. In this case expected outputs will be listed in
order of relative importance, as will be the expected users of those outputs
(categorised by organisation type). Giving structure to the lists on the two axes of the
matrix will make it easier to interpret the significance of the cell contents where they
do have specific values. They may or may not fit with the priorities as planned.
More substantial relationships can be captured through the use of a similar matrix.
Funding and other contractual relationships between the intervening organisation and
their immediate partners can be described. This was the case with the PETRRA rice
research project in Bangladesh where grants were provided to multiple groups of
organisations, including government research bodies, universities, and NGOs, and
private sector firms. The complex web of relationships that was created is shown in
Figure 10 below. Some of these relationships had not been created previously, most
notably those between agricultural research sections within universities and NGOs.
While the establishment of these relationships was not an initial project objective,
their continuation did become so. Of particular concern will be the longer-term fate of
these relationships, now the project has ended. In retrospect it would have been
useful to generate a matrix where the cell values showed the relative likelihood (or
desirability) of the continuation of each relationship (between row and column
actors). This could then have provided a focus for ex-post investigations by the donor
or others.
Figure 10
Key: Links = funding relationships. Node: Grey = Funding body, Green = Government
Research Institutes, Red = NGOs, Crimson = Private sector firms, Blue = International
organisations, Yellow = Universities
Outputs x Outputs
Different outputs produced by an organisation can be linked to each other by
overlapping groups of users. Figure 11 below shows the expected overlap in user
29
groups within the Healthlink Exchange program, in London16. Its design arose out of
an evaluation that included analysis of linkages between user of its various services.
Figure 11
Expected overlaps in users / participants (actors in rows link to actors in cols)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Advisory
And
Liaison
A
High
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Service
Health Information Forum
INASP-Health Directory
HIF-Net At Who
INASP Health Links
Health Lib, Partnership
DataB
Website
HIF-Like Groups
G
High
Low
Low
None
High
High High
Low
H
Low
None
Low
Low
Overlaps can occur by design or accident. A good communications strategy will try to
create linkages between different products and services, and encourage their users
to follow those links. Workshops can be used to publicise the existence of websites,
website can publicise the existence of emailing lists, emailing lists can publicise
upcoming events, etc.
Those links might be designed to expose users to the whole range of services
available, by ensure multiple routes to each service. Or they might have more
directed behaviour in mind. The following network diagram shows the intended
relationship between the main communications media being used by the Making
Markets Work Better for the Poor. The overall intention is to draw people from one-off
events to ongoing engagement; from summary discussions of what the project is
about, to more in-depth discussions.
Figure 12
16
This table is not complete, two rows have no cells with entries in them
30
Monitoring the traffic from one media to another is possible in many cases but not all.
New email list members can automatically be asked where they heard about the
email list17 The routes used by visitors to websites can be tracked, back to other
websites, search engines and emails. Overlaps between workshop participation lists
and email lists should be identifiable. Spikes in numbers of visitors to websites can
linked by timing to known publicity events (newspaper articles, workshops).
Downloads of documents available from websites can be counted and related to
timing of email notifications of their availability.
Actors x Actors
People can be linked through their joint use of a particular type of communications
output. Exchange Healthlink have organised more than 40 public meetings over a
period of years, on health information issues. Systematic records have been kept of
all participants and these were made available during an evaluation of their work. A
simple network diagram showed that while the early meetings addressed the needs
of a relatively stable constituency more recent meetings were reaching out to a quite
different group of people. This information needs to be placed in context of Exchange
Healthlink's intentions. Was any continuity of participation expected, or was a break
from the past constituency desired? Were some types of participants seen as being
of higher priority than others? This information about intentions could be represented
within the matrices used to record actual participation, by rank ordering the names
and categories of possible participants.
The meeting' records also included data on types of organisations represented by the
participants. Connections between these types of organisations could have been
facilitated where their members jointly attended a number of meetings. As shown in
Figure 13 below, a network diagram was constructed to show the notional linkages
created between different types of organisations. As above, the significance of this
diagram depends on Exchange Healthlink's intentions. What sort of linkages were
they trying to encourage if any? This could be shown in an Actors x Actors matrix,
with cells in each row prioritising the importance of the connections that were being
encouraged. Where improved linkages were identifiable, follow-up work would then
need to be done to establish the extent to which contacts were actually made, and of
those, which were sustained.
17
As is done with the MandE NEWS emailing list
31
Figure 13
Boundary network actors can be connected in other less tangible ways, which still
have significance. In the 2005 revision of the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy
(GPRS) a number of cross-sectoral planning groups were organised to discuss the
revision of the GPRS, each around a main theme, e.g. governance, the economy,
etc. In the process the planning groups developed a number of policy objectives for
their specific area. In one group the participants were asked to priority rank each of
the group's listed policy objectives. Each participant represented a different section of
the government. Those rankings were then aggregated into an Actors x Policy
Objectives matrix. Ranking values for each policy objective were summarised in the
form of average and range values. The averages were then used as measures of
over priority and the range values were left as a pointer to where more discussion
was needed, to establish a stronger agreement. The network diagram in Figure 14
below shows the between the participating organisations (red nodes) and the policy
objectives under discussion (blue nodes). The larger the size of the blue node the
higher the overall priority, and the thicker the line the higher priority given to the node
that it connects to.
32
Figure 14
These linkages will have a continuing significance. Indicators of progress and
achievement will need to be identified for each of the policy objectives. If they have
been agreed to by those stakeholders who have prioritised the objectives concerned
then they are more likely to be used.
Matrices and the Outer Network
Identifying the actors
The outer network includes all those actors the intervening organisation is not in
direct contact with. This is likely to include people and organisations that are already
known and many that are not. One expression of organisational strategy will be the
way in which these actors are differentiated and prioritised. In the case of the
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC)18 in Australia, their
stakeholders are have been broadly differentiated into three types: "the fishing
industry, the federal. State and territory governments, and the people of Australia".
The fishing industry has then been further differentiated into three categories:
commercial, recreational, and customary. The commercial sector has then been
further differentiated into production and post-harvest sectors, and the production
sector further divided into commercial wild catch and aquaculture. Even where
organisations have not officially differentiated their stakeholders, more informal
categorisations can usually be found19.
Within these emerging frameworks there are there both formal and informal ways in
which unknown actors can become known actors. People can meet accidentally, but
18
Cited here because of my knowledge of the Corporation through a M&E consultancy
And documented through the use of card sorting exercises such as Tree Mapping. See
www.mande.co.uk/docs/treemap.htm
19
33
also be brought together intentionally. Structures can be set up to represent known
interest groups, as is the case with the FRDC above. And people can find out about
people through informal connections of various kinds. In the section below I have
outlined four types of replicable methods that can be used when using modular
matrices for planning and evaluation. It would be useful to identify others.
The first is through facilitated self-identification. Many development projects have
multiple means of contacting people and engaging them with the issues of concern.
These can include websites, workshops, mailing lists, pamphlets, newspaper articles,
radio and even television slots. Workshop participants can include people specifically
invited and others not previously known. Workshop attendance lists can capture the
names and contact details of both groups. Newspaper article and other forms of
publicity can attract people to workshops. Emailing lists associated with websites can
capture details of previously unknown visitors who have an ongoing interest in the
issues covered by the website. Communications strategies can be designed to
increase the number of known interested people, and to progressively engage those
people in longer-term forms of contact. This is the approach being taken by the
Making Markets Work Better for the Poor project in Vietnam20.
The second is through systematic indirect inquiry. In SNA surveys there are a
number of ways of identifying actors' relationships. One is by the use of a roster of
names, or events of concern. Respondents are asked to identify people on the roster
whom they have a particular type of relationship with (e.g. seek advice from, socialise
with, etc). This approach provides strict comparability, but relies on the researchers'
having prior knowledge of the set of other actors or events that are relevant. The
other method is to ask respondents questions about specific types of relationships,
using questions along the lines of "Who do you usually go to, to obtain…?" or "Who
was the last person who you contacted for information about…?" The G-RAP project
will be using both methods, in the course of a baseline survey of relationships
amongst the organisations it is funding. The roster list will be based on data provided
to the project at the beginning of their first grant making cycle.
Figure 15 below shows an affiliation matrix constructed with data collected by the
World Bank, in Ghana. It shows the relationships between different international
donors working in Ghana and what have been described as the different "sectors"
which are receiving aid support. The matrix differentiates four types of relationships,
involving finance, non-finance activities, finance and non-finance activities, and
loans. The data for this matrix was collected via a survey form sent to all the donors
listed in the matrix. The World Bank works with some but not all of these donors, and
in some but not all of the sectors. As such, the matrix includes both boundary and
outer network actors. The survey was not carried out as a form of network analysis,
so there has been no subsequent analysis of the data that was collected. Instead, the
matrix was simply made available to the donors participating in the survey, as a
means of facilitating donor cooperation. The survey design could be improved upon.
For example, by replacing references to sectors, with references to specific
government of Ghanaian ministries and agencies. Sectors are less tangible entities,
and open to varying interpretations. A focus on identifiable organisations would make
donor coordination efforts easier to self-organise.
20
Which I have provided M&E consultancy services to since late 2004
34
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
M&E
Natural_Resources
Energy
3
4
Multi-Donor_Budget_Support
2
Private_Sector_Development
3
4
Public_Sector_Reform
3
4
3
1
3
Public_Finance
1
2
3
4
Roads
Key to relationships
Water
3
4
3
Health
3
4
3
Education
Governance
European_Commission
AfDB
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
France_(Cooperation)
France_(AFD)
Germany_(GTZ)
Germany_(KfW)
JICA
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
Nordic_Development_Fund
Spain
Switzerland
United_Kingdom(DFID)
United_States(USAID)
UNESCO
UNICEF
UNDP
WHO
FAO
IFAD
World_Bank
ILO
Decentralisation
Agriculture
Figure 15
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
3
2
Finance
Non-finance activities
Finance and non-finance
Loan
A third method is through secondary sources. The NGO Resource Centre in Hanoi
periodically publishes an INGO Directory, a director of information about the
operations of international Non-Government organisations in Vietnam. In an annex of
the most recent edition two large matrices were included. One listed all INGOs x
location (province, and district) and another listed all INGOs x the sector they were
involved in (e.g. health, education, water supply, etc). The information content of the
cell entries in the matrices was minimal, they were simply blacked out, and thus
indicated that the INGO was working in that cell location or sector. As will be
discussed below, there are however, a number of analyses that could be carried out
with this data.
While documents can be seen as secondary sources of information about linkages
between people or organisations, they can also describe linkages between significant
documents. The Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy M&E Plan has a three-page
matrix, detailing which indicators are referred to in which policy documents, including
the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Millennium Development Goals, and
HIPC21. That policies x indicators matrix was used to produce a network diagram. In
that diagram it was easy to see at least seven distinct clusters of indicators,
21
The Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative, the current debt relief scheme created in 1996 by the
World Bank and IMF to provide limited debt relief for the poorest countries with the goal of brining
countries to a “sustainable” level of debt.
35
characterised by different sets of relationships to the three policy documents. On a
larger scale, the GPRS was most closely connected to the MDGs, and then HIPC is
most closely connected to the GPRS. Overall these three documents were only
weakly connected as a whole, having only two indicators in common.
Another example deals with more abstract linkages. DFID has funded "Drivers of
Change" studies in ten countries in Africa and Asia. These have in turn been
analysed by Brocklesby, Crawford and Brow (2005). Part of their analysis includes a
matrix showing "Key Local Themes" (17) x "Country of Study" (10). Cell contents
differentiate: (a) topics mentioned in passing with little analysis, (b) topics discussed
in some details with examples, and (c) topics treated as a major theme of the study.
Unfortunately, despite the effort put into producing the matrix, little use was made in
the text, even by use of row and column totals, let alone an analysis of clustering of
issues. This was also the case with the GPRS indicator linkages tables. This may
reflect lack of familiarity with methods for analysing such data.
A fourth method is through what might be called "the systematic collection of
anecdotes". The Most Significant Changes (MSC)" monitoring method (Davies and
Dart, 2005) was developed as a means of monitoring without the use of indicators, in
programs with very diverse and/or unpredictable outcomes. The focus is on the
participatory collection and analysis of stories of change that are seen as significant
by the participants. Such MSC stories always include a set of actors linked together
around an incident that is seen as relevant to the programs goals. The Governance
Research and Advocacy project in Ghana will be using this method to identify
significant changes in government policy, as seen by the project's partners,
Ghanaian research and advocacy organisations. It is expected that the use of MSC
will also shed light on who some of the important actors are, and how they relate to
other actors. Less systemic but similar use has been made of MSC by the MMWB4P
project in Vietnam. Incidents where previously unknown actors have made public
references to the project have been documented, and then efforts have been made
to track the channels through which they heard about the project, and how their
comments found their way back to the project.
Analysing the network of relationships
My experience of mapping wider sets of relationships, as seen from within
development programs, is limited. That fact may be suggestive of how much
attention they usually receive, relative to the intervening organisation's own
processes and its immediate relationships with users of its products and services.
There are different possible reasons for analysing a wider set of relationships
between actors. The intervening organisation may be seeking information or it may
be wishing to disseminate information. At the early stages of project design, during a
stakeholder analysis, the focus may be identifying those who could influence the
project, as well as those the project wants to influence. Later on, the relationships
between the wider set of actors may be an important consideration during the design
of a project's communications strategy.
Stakeholder analysis that is undertaken as part of the project design process can be
seen as a form of social network analysis, but one that has grown up in isolation. A
common feature of stakeholder analyses used for project design purpose is: (a) the
classification of different categories of stakeholder (e.g. primary and secondary
stakeholders, external stakeholders, and sub-categories thereof), and then (b) their
cross-tabulation against different possible types of relationship to the proposed
36
project (e.g. their interest in the project, their importance to the project, their ability to
influence the project, their likely impact on the project) (DFID, 2002). Where this
method differs from social network analysis is its focus on "the project" as the focal
point of concern. There is no explicit analysis of relationships between stakeholders.
An additional difficulty is the implicit ambiguity about what "the project" is. Is it a
project management structure, of the whole network of actors linking that structure to
the intended beneficiaries? If the latter, why analyse actors relationships to "it" as an
entity, when the constituent actors are in practice likely to have various types of
relationships with each other?
The alternative is to think more explicitly about stakeholder relationships in terms of a
communication strategy. This is a more pro-active perspective and less defensive in
orientation. Increasingly, it seems, development aid programs are seeing the
necessity of having communications strategies, whereby the purpose and progress of
the program is disseminated out to a range of stakeholder who the project wants to
inform and in some cases influence. Such strategies are typically developed during
implementation, rather than that at the project design stage. They also seem to have
a longer shelf life.
When the focus is on active communication a more differentiated analysis of which
actors can influence which other actors becomes much more important. In the GRAP project one planned component of the communications strategy is an actors x
actors matrix, including those in the boundary and outer networks. The proposed
matrix will show linkages between actors, in terms of who the G-RAP project
management team thinks can influence whom, on matters relate to the projects
overall goals. That model may then need some verification by other cooperating
stakeholders, such as the Advisory Board and Funders Committee. It will then be
used to inform the targeting of the project's communications activities. Of special
interest will be those actors, who seem to be able to influence a wide number of other
actors. Other structural features that will need to be attended to are the existence of
gatekeepers, who are the only means of influencing some other actors, and the
existence of multiple influence routes that link to actors who are known to control
certain types of decisions.
The importance of the intervening organisation's intentions to the design of any
analysis of actor relationships can also be seen in the case of the Vietnamese INGO
matrix mentioned above. Social network analysis software can convert these
matrices into network diagrams. Both visually and via the use of statistical analysis it
is then possible to identify clusters of INGOs, linked by their involvement in common
or overlapping sets of sectors. An intervening organisation could then make contact
with two types of INGOs. Firstly, with those who are most centrally located within
clusters of INGOs that were of most interest. For example, clusters which were all
focusing on health services. A centrally located INGO might be a particularly good
source of information about what was happening in that sector, or a particularly good
channel through which important information could be disseminated. On the other
hand, the intervening organisation might also be interested in other INGOs with
different characteristics. Such as those who were on the margins of these clusters,
but who were better linked to other clusters. Where more generic types of information
needed to be accessed or disseminated, the INGOs in these positions would be of
more interest.
In the case of the GPRS Indicators, also mentioned above, the type of analysis made
will depend on intentions. The linkages identified could be seen as plans, and what
now matters is actual implementation. What policies are really linked, when it comes
to actual data collection and usage? Alternately, the linkages could be seen as
37
outcomes of a negotiation process, and the question now is how satisfactory are they
to the stakeholders who were involved.
6. Comparisons with related developments
In many fields innovations often take place in parallel, rather than being once-off
events (Ziman, 2000). So far at least four other methods have been identified that
relate to the modular matrix approach proposed in this paper. These are all
discussed below.
Circles of stakeholders
This is the title of a paper by Maessen et al (2003). In this paper they argue the case
for a “relational approach” to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Examining the
literature on stakeholder analysis they find “a wide variety of lists” but no coherent
basis for structuring a typology of stakeholders. I am in agreement with this
conclusion.
The authors then propose a “concentric circles” approach to categorising
stakeholders. In the first circle are the employees and shareholders of a company. In
the second are the clients, business partners and suppliers. In the third circle are
neighbours, government agencies, NGOs and other parties with an interest in the
company’s operations or products. The stakeholders in the third circle are
differentiated from those in the first and second circles by the fact that they have no
contractual relations with the company, and have more indirect contact. The
stakeholders in the second circle are differentiated from those in the first by the fact
that their relationships “have to be renewed again and again by each and every
contact”. They note that stakeholders may move their position from within one circle
to within another as their relationship with the company changes. They also note that
similar concentric circles could be centred on a certain stakeholder, placing that
particular organisation in the middle.
The concentric circles view of stakeholders clearly overlaps a lot with the three
networks perspective introduced earlier in this paper. The main point of difference is
that Maessen et al differentiate some stakeholders on the basis of the type of
contracts they have: short versus long term, and conflate others (those with no
contacts and those with indirect contact. The former seems justifiable, especially in a
corporate social responsibility context, but the later seems unadvisable.
Stakeholders with and without direct contact with firms are in different positions to be
informed about and to inform those firms. The distinction is likely to have a range of
consequences.
Metamatrix
The meta-matrix tool is self-described below.
38
Metamatrix
"The metamatrix approach (Krackhardt and Carley, 1998; Carley and Krackhardt,
1999; Carley et al., 2000; Carley 1999, 2001a,b; Carley and Hill, 2001; Carley and
Ren, 2001) provides a representational framework and family of methods for the
analysis of organizational data. Stemming from work by Kathleen Carley, David
Krackhardt, Yuquing Ren, and others, this approach builds heavily on recent
network-oriented treatments of organizational structure, as well as ideas from the
information processing school of organizational theory (March and Simon, 1958;
Simon, 1973; Galbraith, 1977) and operations research. Under this model,
organizations are conceived of as being composed of a set of elements each of
which belongs to one of five classes: Personnel, Knowledge, Resources, Tasks
Organizations. The organization is then defined by the set of elements, together
with the dyadic relationships among these elements. It is the analysis of these
dyadic relationships which lies at the heart of the metamatrix approach."
http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/projects/MetaMatrix/index.html
As I understand the text above, the classes represent the types of things that can be
represented on the two axes of a matrix. The elements are the items within those
classes.
There is some apparent overlap in the types of classes of elements that are used.
CASOS’s metamatrix approach uses Personnel and Organisations, and the modular
matrix approach outlined in this paper uses people, of varying types and groupings.
Knowledge, Tasks and Resources are referred to here in this paper, but they are
more likely to be referred via the title or sub-sections of documents that are
describing them. Such as Budgets, Terms of Reference, strategy and policy
documents, etc.
There are some noticeable differences. One is that within the metamatrix approach
the five classes of elements are pre-determined. In contrast, in the modular matrix
approach the classes of elements are up to the user to define. Observation of this
difference then prompts the useful question of what, if any, constraint should be
imposed on the choices of what classes can be represented on the axes’ of modular
matrices. My suggestion is that the choice of constraint should be derived from this
paper’s orientation towards evaluation. That is the classes of elements should be
observable and verifiable in their content. They should be either actors, or objects
and events known by actors. This type of constraint creates a useful a bias towards
real actors and real entities, rather than abstract conceptions and processes. The
latter are especially difficult to communicate across cultures, a problem that has
already been noted with the use of the Logical Framework. It also makes the
processes described in the matrices more evaluable.
The second difference is in how the tools are used. The bias here in this paper is
towards enabling the construction of modular representations by the actors involved
in the organisations concerned. My impression with the metamatrix is that its use
requires some specialist expertise, and that it is not readily amenable to use by
people within the organisations being analysed. According to Butts (2001), with the
metamatrix approach the focus is on the use of custom designed software to analyse
quantitative data, using social network analysis measures of network structure. This
seems quite restrictive. It should it is possible to take a broader approach to the
analyses of the contents of matrices, using methods that are simpler and easier to
use by the actors represented in those matrices, or by who have constructed them.
39
Concept Mapping
The network analysis dimension of Concept Mapping is less evident than with the
Metamatrix approach. However Concept Mapping does have a stronger concern with
project planning and evaluation, which links it closer to the ultimate concerns of the
modular matrix approach. Concept Mapping is described by its originator (Bill
Trochim) as follows:
“Concept mapping is a type of structured conceptualization which can be used by
groups to develop a conceptual framework which can guide evaluation or planning.
In the typical case, six steps are involved: 1) Preparation (including selection of
participants and development of focus for the conceptualization); 2) the Generation
of statements; 3) the Structuring of statements; 4) the Representation of Statements
in the form of a concept map (using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis);
5) the Interpretation of maps; and, 6) the Utilization of Maps. Concept mapping
encourages the group to stay on task; results relatively quickly in an interpretable
conceptual framework; expresses this framework entirely in the language of the
participants; yields a graphic or pictorial product which simultaneously shows all
major ideas and their interrelationships; often improves group or organizational
cohesiveness and morale”.
An Introduction to Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation for Community
Development. William M.K. Trochim and Donald Tobias, Dept. of Policy Analysis
and Management, Cornell University
Concept Mapping is especially relevant to the planning stages of projects involving
multiple stakeholders and where there are no clearly pre-defined and overarching
objectives. The “elements” in Concept Mapping, to use Krackhardt and Carley’s term
above, are cards containing statements about specific issues of concern, each
generated by one of the many participants. Once a population of cards (issues) has
been generated, each participant is allowed to group the cards into piles, according
to commonalities they can see amongst the grouped cards. Participants are not
asked to explain the rationale behind their groupings. The results of these sorting
exercises are then collated into a matrix of issues x issues, with cell values indicating
the frequency with which issue in that cell row was associated with issue in that cell
column. If 10 people grouped those two issues together in the same group, the cell
value would show 10.
The matrix that is used here is equivalent to an adjacency matrix, as used in Social
Network Analysis. It is important to note however that the relationships that are
shown between the issues on the sorted cards are not causal. For example, in the
way that might be represented in a Problem Tree analysis, which is sometimes used
as a precursor to the design of a Logical Framework. What are mapped are
associations of issues, as co-resident in the minds of the participants.
The matrix of relationships data is then analysed by the use of statistical techniques
to generate clusters of issues22. “Trochim and Tobias note that “No simple
mathematical criterion is available by which a final number of clusters
“…hierarchical cluster analysis using using Wards algorithm (Everitt, 1980) as the basis for defining
a cluster”
22
40
can be selected.” Their choice of numbers of the number of clusters to use is
subjective, though the membership of those clusters is not. They try to minimize the
overall number of clusters but also try not make them so large in membership that
the people who generated the issues could not give the clusters a meaningful name.
In Social Network Analysis there is an array of methods for identifying clusters,
involving both: (a) bottom up techniques which start by searching for completely
inter-linked items, and (b) top down techniques that look for cut-points within
networks, then within clusters identified in those networks. This multi-level analysis is
irrelevant to Concept Mapping because the search is simply for a workable set of
common concepts.
The naming of the concept represented by each cluster of issues is done by a
facilitator, working with the group of participants, there is no analytic procedure
involved. The concept is essentially a generalization that participants are happy to
accept as a description of all the issues within the cluster, and which differentiate
those issues from issues in the other clusters. The nearest equivalent naming
process in Social Network Analysis is probably Block Modeling, where groups of
actors in a matrix are experimentally grouped into larger entities, and given
descriptive names, by the researcher.
The Concept Mapping process also involves the rating of all of the individual
statements on criteria such as importance, and feasibility. Those values are then
aggregated to provide a summary description of each cluster concept, in the same
terms. Those aggregated values are then represented in a scatter plot to differentiate
four possible types of issues: important and feasible, important and not feasible, etc.
There is an alternative here that would represent a modular matrix approach. That
would be to construct an actors x issue cluster matrix, with cell values representing
the importance or the feasibility ratings. However, an analysis of the social structure
of the issues clusters is not Trochim’s primary concern. His concern is with
generating consensual constructions of issue categories, their priority and feasibility
of resolution.
In summary, Concept Mapping has a quite explicit and channelled purpose. It has a
step-by-step methodology and a semi-proprietary methodology. This stands in
contrast to the more general-purpose orientation of the modular matrix approach, and
its open source methodology. Concept Mapping is strongly oriented towards
construction of a consensus, whereas social network analysis tools used in the
modular matrix approach are not
The 2 x 2 Frameworks Inventory
Alex Lowy and Phil Hood have written a book titled "The Power of the 2 x 2 Matrix:
Using 2x2 Thinking to Solve Business Problems and Make Better Decisions" In their
book, which I have not yet obtained, they have section titled the "The 2 x 2
Frameworks Inventory" in which they present 52 different 2 x 2 matrices, under three
broad categories: Strategic Frameworks, Organizational Frameworks, and Individual
Frameworks. The intention is similar to the proposal made in this paper, to develop a
library of usable matrices. There are however some notable differences. One is that
access to the Lowry and Hood library is at a cost, another is that any updating will be
in the hands of the authors only. Perhaps more importantly, the matrices that the
authors are concerned with are of a different kind. They are 2 x 2 matrices only,
where as this paper is concerned with much larger matrices, whose size is a matter
41
of choice, according to the context. Their 2 x 2 matrices are more oriented towards
generating complex classifications out of combinations of simple classification's and
thus widening up the way in which people can see and respond. The n x n matrices
presented in this paper share some of that intent, but they are more empirically
oriented, intended to provide better representations of planned and actual
relationships between entities.
7. Resume: Implications for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
It is not uncommon for people to look at network representations and ask: “So what?
It’s interesting, but how do we use this?” Network representations are tools that are
relatively theory-neutral, except at a fairly highly level of assumptions about the
nature of causality (mutual, rather than one way, multiple rather than single causes,
etc. – see Davies, 2004, 2005). They are not useful by themselves. Like a tape
measure or a compass, the data that is made available is only meaningful in the light
of some purpose.
There are three broad purposes that can be pursued, using a network perspective:
1. Description: of what is happening, prior to the planning of a course of action. For
example, the donor x sectors matrix constructed by the World Bank. This could
then lead to planned interventions to change those relationships, either centrally
by the World Bank, or through self-organisation, by many of the donors actors
acting locally on their own initiative, once they have access to the matrix data.
This usage relates to the task of Discovery, mentioned earlier. A useful
evaluation question here is how accurate is the description. Does the map
actually describe the territory, in a way that can be used? In the World Bank
example, is the focus on "sectors" rather than organisations, a wise one? Would it
be more useful to give numerical values (e.g. amounts of funding involved) or
priority rankings to the relationships?
2. Prescription: of what should happen. For example, the programs x objectives
matrix constructed by the Government ministries in Vietnam, showing how
individual programs were expected to effect each of the main objectives being
pursued by the ministry concerned. This usage relates to the task of Alignment,
mentioned earlier. A useful evaluation question here is how coherent is the
prescription. In the Vietnam example, do the individual ministries have the right
mix of programs to achieve the objectives as they are now prioritised?
3. Assessment: of what has happened No example matrices have been provided in
this paper, but it is possible to imagine what would be needed. In the case of the
Government of Vietnam matrices, the same objectives x programs matrix could
be re-populated with cells values reflecting the scale of evidence about actual
achievements (of programs affecting objectives). This usage relates to the task of
Implementation, mentioned earlier. The useful evaluation question here is how
accurate is the assessment of what has been achieved.
These three purposes can then be linked by two types of comparisons. At the
appraisal stage of project design, the prescription not only needs to be examined in
terms of its internal coherence, but also in terms of its fit with the prior description of
the project context. During mid-term and final review stages the assessment data
needs to be compared to the prescription.
42
Matrices (and network diagrams) can be used for both appraisal and review. This is
in contrast with the Logical Framework where the initial situation analysis is done with
a different set of representational tools (stakeholder analysis, problem trees23, etc)
whose analysis cannot be easily compared to the prescribed change in the Logical
Framework. Comparisons of plans and progress are less problematic for the Logical
Framework. A common practice is to replace the MOV and Assumptions column with
details of evidence of achievement on the indicators given in each row.
In my experience to date, the first type of questions are the most challenging but
more neglected. Initial project plans often make very simplified and not very explicit
assumptions about the number of types of actors involved, and their relationships
with each other. This limitation however helps us identify some useful progress
markers for better quality descriptions. That is, over time they should contain more
differentiated descriptions of the numbers and types of actors and their relationships
to each other. This possible development was referred to above, in the discussion of
actors in the Outer Network.
What about indicators?
Within the Logical Framework two types of information are provided. One is a
description of the vertical program logic: going from narrative statement to
assumption, to narrative statement… The other is a description of the indicators and
the associated means of verification that can be used at each stage of the
narrative24.
This paper has focused on alternative way of telling a story in large and complex
programs, through the use of linked matrices. If that approach is accepted as a way
forward, what happens to indicators? Are they needed, and where do they fit in? If
our concern is with verification of the information within matrices, then there are four
types of information in modular matrices that need to be verifiable.
1. The actors (and entities) along the two dimension of the matrix. We need to know
where these can be found, so they can be interviewed (if actors), or read about (if
events or documents). This information can be provided in supporting
documentation associated with the matrix.
2. The ordering of the actors (/and entities) along the two dimension of the matrix.
The basis for doing so needs to be provided in text associated with the matrix,
along with the name of the author.
3. The specific relationships within the matrix need to be identifiable. If we know
where to find the people or documents referred to in the axes of the matrices, we
should be able to verify the relationships that are described in the cells of the
matrix. This point is followed further below.
4. The derivation of the summary values in the summary rows and columns. If there
process of calculation is transparent, and the cells values can be verified, then
the summary values should be verifiable.
23
Incidentally, linkages within a problem tree could be re-presented as linkages within a problems x
problems matrix, and this matrix could in turn linked to a problems x actors matrix
24 But not, for some unknown reason, for each of the linking assumptions.
43
The relationships within the matrix are the "meat" in the sandwich, where verification
will probably be of greatest concern. A form of triangulation may be applicable here.
In the first instance we have the row actor (or document) that makes a claimed
linkage with a column actor or document. They may be able to provide supporting
evidence of such claims. If they have responsibility for implementing those linkages,
then they might be expected to have that supporting evidence.
In social network analysis, a person's claims of linkages with others are often then
verified, by interviewing those others about such claimed linkages25. The same can
be applied to actor x document linkages of the kind proposed in this paper. People
can be interviewed, or the documents read, by an independent third party.
Another means of verification may be by comparison of the claimed linkage with
other linkages within the same matrix. These can include across-actor comparisons,
and within-actor comparisons. Looking across-actors, we may want to be sure that
the evidence for a given type of linkage is consistent: either equivalent or better, in
strength. Looking within-actors, we may need to focus more on internal coherence of
the evidence given. In the case of ranking values in cells, the arguments for a given
cell value will need to fit well within the context of the arguments for the other rank
values in the adjacent cells in the same row.
Concern about verification of claims made may not be the only reason for focusing
on indicators. Indicators may function as useful progress markers, along an intended
path. These are especially useful when intentions are stated in general terms, as is
the case with narrative statements in Logical Frameworks, especially at the Purpose
and Goal level. At the Activities level, the descriptions are usually much more
specific, and indicators are rarely used, because they are in effect redundant.
In the network approach outlined in this paper the actors involved, there is less need
for this second level of description, because matrices, by definition, can cope with a
larger number of entities, and their linkages. Where there is need for extra
information, especially when matrices are used as statements of plans or
expectations, is about the relative importance of the different actors, and the linkages
to and from them. This information can be easily represented: (a) in the way in which
actors are ordered on the two axes, (b) by the cell values within the matrix and, (c) by
the use of row and column summaries. This was the case with the Ministries in
Vietnam where overall objectives were prioritised using the data within the matrix
cells, and then weighted by the scale of investment in each existing program (as
shown on the column summaries).
Returning to the bigger picture
In this section above I have argued that knowledge about the linkages described
within matrices should be in the hands of the actors (and/or documents) described on
the axes of those documents. By extension, knowledge about those actors should be
in the hands of others who are mentioned in any linked matrices. Within a planned
program we should be able to find out who should know who and who should know
what.
Earlier in this paper, I re-stated some generic implications of an actor-centred
approach, that can be operationalised through the use of modular matrices, and
25
Where these are supported, this will be evident in the symmetric structure of matrix describing actor x
actor relationships, showing A linked to B and B linked to A, etc.
44
which had formed the conclusions of the Seville paper (Davies, 2005). The fourth
point made was:
"… because all information is embodied, information is needed not just about distant
changes, but also about who holds and provides that information. A networked view implies
more attention to meta-monitoring: asking what people know (and don’t know) and what that
means. A greater emphasis on meta-monitoring should itself help aid agencies cope with the
problems of scale, the initial problem posed by the first paper."
8. Future Developments
Developing rules about developing modules
In this paper I have outlined a range of applications for matrices and network
diagrams, in a variety of settings. The intention was to show just how scalable and
adaptable network frameworks are. Linking the variety of possible applications is the
integrating concept of modularity. Matrices that describe particular sets of
relationships can be linked together to describe a larger picture. Links can be made
back and forwards in time and up and downwards in physical scale. This ability
helps us address the competing demands of scalability and sensitivity to local
circumstances and details, which was the challenge of concern in the 2002 Seville
paper (Davies, 2004b, 2005).
Taking this idea forward, I have argued that there is a place here for an Open Source
approach to the development of matrix modules. That is, we should encourage broad
participation in the development of a public library of usable matrix modules. The
assumption here is that doing so will unleash more creativity than if the modular
matrix approach was treated in a proprietary way, as one persons property. This
assumption has been encouraged by two recent publications on the social
dimensions of the process of innovation: The Wisdom of Crowds (Surowiecki, 2004),
and Democratizing Innovation (Von Hippel, 2005).
If the aim is to collectively develop a public library of modular matrices then it will be
useful to think about the rules that govern the contributions to that library. There are
two types of rules that are likely to be useful:
 Rules about specification of completed matrices
 Rules about the matrix development process.
Rules about matrices need to be in the form of minimal specifications. As such they
should not be to demanding, or too many. The aim is to allow maximum innovation,
while still ensuring some accumulation of collective benefit. The following rules are
proposed:
 Matrices should have identifiable authors, who can be queried about the
contents of the matrix
 Matrix dimensions should refer either to identifiable actors or observable
entities or events. These may include documents and meetings, for example.
They may also refer to parts of these, so long as they are identifiable. The
intention of this rule is to enable some verification of intended or actual linkages
within the matrix.
 Matrices should preferably have at least one common axis’ with one or more
other matrices in the public library. The intention of this rule is to enable the
construction of larger scale representations, using the modules available in the
library. This rule should not be absolute. If it can be shown that other matrices
45
could be built that would link this matrix with those already in the library, the rule
could be seen as being followed.
Rules about the matrix development process also need to be in the form of minimal
specifications. The aim here is to allow individual freedom but in forms that do not
work against securing broad participation. The assumption being that the wider the
participation in the development process, the more likely that useful innovations will
be developed. The following rules are proposed:
 A full description of the new modules will be made publicly available, via the
MMA mailing list26, in the first instance.
 The designer of the new matrix does not seek or claim sole copyright. The
preferred form of protection is Creative Commons status27.
Developing participatory data collection and analysis methods
Social network analysis was developed as a research methodology primarily within
an academic context (Freeman, 2004). Parallel to the development of matrix
modules we need to develop approaches to the collection and analysis of network
data that are appropriate to development aid programs. Methods need to be easy to
understand, open to people's participation, manageable within a limited time span,
and applicable at different stages of the planning cycle. As well as through the
traditional use of surveys, data collection should be possible via workshop and other
group settings. Participatory data analysis should be possible using simple methods
that do not involve complex mathematics. For example the use of summary rows and
columns introduced earlier in this paper. Feedback of aggregated data about network
structures should be seen as a potential intervention, that may well widen many
participants knowledge of the networks they belong to. In a development program,
perhaps more than elsewhere, network structures should be expected to be relatively
dynamic, and need repeated monitoring.
Introducing modular matrices for the first time
The above discussion assumes a growing interest and understanding in the MMA. If
this is to be the case then there needs to be some ongoing promotion of the MMA.
However, it can often be difficult to introduce new methods to people and
organisations who already have established ways of doing things, or who might be
wary of the costs of exploring and adopting new practices. Especially if the new
method involves a significantly different way of thinking. With these concerns in mind,
the following advice of offered:
Don’t throw the Logical Framework away, or give people the impression that it
should no longer be used. Instead use it as a bridge. Introduce the idea of Logical
Framework having a social structure, and explain how making the Logical Framework
more people centred can make it more useful, and easier to understand. Introduce
the idea of the Logical Framework having a network structure, showing examples of
how many activities can link to many outputs, many outputs to many purposes, etc.
Then show how matrices can make those complex connections more visible and thus
more amenable to planning, management, monitoring and evaluation.
Start with one small step at a time. Do this by introducing a matrix that has
immediate practical use. These are most likely to be ones that describe processes
26
27
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ModularMatrixApproach/
See http://creativecommons.org/
46
inside their organisation, or ones that describe their relationships with users of their
products and services.
Introduce the idea of other linked matrices. If the initial focus was on a budget
inputs x outputs matrix, introduce the idea of staff x outputs matrix. Or an outputs x
users matrix. Then get people thinking about design of other matrices that may also
be useful. Then introduce the idea of matrices that link different scales, or the past
and future .
Then get people think about the usefulness of a larger set of linked matrices.
For example, those which will enable a whole trail of intentions to be mapped out,
starting from events inside their organisation, on to their immediate clients and out to
other people and organisation, and on to their clients of final concern.
Don’t start by explaining the whole methodology (sections 4 & 5). Introduce this
paper when people are interested in a wider perspective, beyond what might have
immediate practical applications.
47
References
Ahmed, Z., Hassan, M., Ladbury, S. (2004) Identifying Opportunities To Improve
Efficiency In The Trade And Transport Sectors: A Study On Chittagong Port.
Unpublished.
Axelrod, R., Cohen, M. D. (1999) Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications
of a Scientific Frontier. Free Press. London
Batjes and Cummings, S. (2003) Smart Tools for the Evaluation of Information
Products and Services: A Collaborative Initiative. Information Development. 19: 127136. See http://www.cta.int/pubs/wd8029/wd8029.pdf
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C. (2002) Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software
for Social Network Analysis. Harvard Analytic Technologies.
See
http://www.analytictech.com/downloaduc6.htm
Borgatti, S.P., Foster, P.C. (2003) The Network Paradigm in Organisational
Research: A Review and Typology. Journal of Management. 29(6) 991-1013.
Pergammon. See http://www.analytictech.com/borgatti/publications.htm
Brocklesby, M. A., Crawford, S., Brown, T. (2005) "Why Local Drivers Of Change
Matter: Reviewing "Local" In DFID Drivers Of Change Studies" Unpublished
consultancy
report.
Contract
Number:
IPS
001
See
http://www.swan.ac.uk/cds/pdffiles/WhyLocalDriversofChangeMatter.pdf
Butts, C.T., Carley, K.M., Krackhardt, D., Yuquing Ren, Y., (2001) Analyzing
Organizational Structure with metamatrix Carnegie Mellon University. See
http://erzuli.ss.uci.edu/R.stuff/metamatrix.tutorial/metamatrix.tutorial.0.1.pdf
CIDA (2000) RBM Handbook on Developing Results Chains: The Basics of RBM as
Applied to 100 Project Examples. Results-Based Management Division
Canadian International Development Agency. See http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Performancereview6/$file/guide.pdf
Cross, R., Parker, A. (2004) The Hidden Power Of Social Networks: Understanding
How Work Really Gets Done In Organizations. Harvard Business School Press.
Boston. See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591392705?v=glance
Darnton, G., Darnton, M. (1997) Business Process Analysis. International Thomson
Business Press. London.
Davies, R.J. (2003) “Network Perspectives In The Evaluation Of Development
Interventions: More Than A Metaphor”, Paper presented at the 2003 EDIAIS
Conference: New Directions In Impact Assessment For Development: Methods And
Practice. See http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/nape.pdf
Davies, R. J. (2004) ‘Scale, Complexity and the Representation of Theories of
Change’, Evaluation 10(1): 101–21.
Davies, R.J. (2005) ‘Scale, Complexity and the Representation of Theories of
Change’ Part II. Evaluation. Vol 11(2): 133–149
48
Davies, R.J. and Dart, J. (2005) "The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A
Guide to Its Use" Available online at http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm
DFID (2002) "Tools for Development: A handbook for those engaged in development
activity". Performance and Effectiveness Department. Available online at
http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC15254.htm
Earl, S., Carden, F. Smutylo, T. (2001) Outcome Mapping: Building Learning And
Reflection Into Development Programs. IDRC. Ottawa. See http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Freeman, L. C. (2004) "The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the
Sociology
of
Science".
Empirical
Press.
Vancouver.
See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594577145?v=glance
Kellogg Foundation (2004) "Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning,
Evaluation, & Action Logic Model Development Guide" Battle Creek, Michigan.
Available online at http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf
Kilduff, M., Tsai, W. (2003) Social Networks and Organizations. Sage Publications.
London
Lowy, A., Hood, P. (2004) The Power of the 2 x 2 Matrix: Using 2x2 Thinking to Solve
Business Problems and Make Better Decisions. Jossey-Bass
Maessen, R.M.H., van Seters, P.C.M., van Rijckevorsel (2003) "Circles of
Stakeholders". Paper presented at the discussion session: The Stakeholder
Revolution in CSR, Research Conference Managing on the Edge, Nijmegen School
of Management, on 25-26 September 2003
Monge, P., Fulk, J. (2003) "Knowledge Networks and Distributed Intelligence"
Presentation to the Professional Development Workshop, Academy of Management
Seattle, Washington. Available online at
http://www.dkrc.org/AOM_slides/AOM_03_PDW_Transactive_Memory.ppt
Operation Eyesight Universal and PLAN:NET (2000) “Splash and Ripple-A Guide to
Results Based Management (RBM)”, Calgary, November 1998.
Scott, J. (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. Sage Publications. London
Surowiecki, J. (2004) The Wisdom Of Crowds: Why The Many Are Smarter Than The
Few. Little, Brown. London
Temel, T. (2001) Systems Analysis by Graph Theoretical Techniques: Assessment of
the Agricultural Innovation System of Azerbaijan. International Service for National
Agricultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands
Uusikyla, P., Valorvirta, V. (2004) Three spheres of Performance Governance:
Spanning the boundaries from single organisation focus towards a partnership
network. Paper presented at the Conference of the European Group of Public
Administration, 1-4 September 2004, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Visone (2004) Visual Analysis of Social Networks. Available at http://www.visone.de
Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratising Innovation. MIT Press. London.
49