Membership

The members are the heart of any network. Success and failure depend on their motivation and their commitment to it.

Who is a member?

A crucial question to be answered when you set up a network is who are to be the members of the network: individuals, organisations, other networks, or a combination of all three?

■ In formal networks the majority of members will normally come from organisations represented by one or more of their staff members.

■ Formal networks may also have individuals as members like technical resource persons or important decision-makers.

■ Last but not least, it could make sense to form alliances with other networks and to include them as members.

Formal or informal membership

In many networks, membership status is quite loosely defined. As long as members do not have to pay a fee or fulfil other formal requirements, membership status is not too important.

However, formal membership has many advantages. Every potential member has to make a clear decision about joining the network or not. Formal membership encourages active participation in the network and the commitment to share information. Finally, the network’s members and its secretariat know who is actually taking part in it. This facilitates coordination and collaboration.

A formal membership can take the shape of a signature on a membership form, or in the case of an organisation, a memorandum of understanding between the member and the network.

Many networks have different types of membership:

■ regular or voting members who have the right to participate in decision-making processes and a right to vote and elect board members

■ associated members who take part in the activities of a network but have no right to vote

■ informal members who subscribe to a discussion list and receive the newsletter

■ honorary members who have especially contributed to the success of the network

Number of members

A question many networks face concerns the number of members. How many members should a network have? There is no set answer to this question.

too many members, however, the familiarity that creates trust and commitment could be lost. If a network is too closed, its impact may be restricted and many may be excluded from the knowledge and information that the network generates.

One possibility is to have different types of membership, as described above. In the end, however, every network has to find its own balance between openness and restriction, by taking into account its governance mechanisms and executive structure.

Criteria for membership

Networks should set up clear criteria for different types of membership. Some of these criteria are given below:

■ reputation of the potential member

■ contribution a member can make to the network, viz. information and knowledge, social network, or funding

■ capacity (time and funding) to participate in the network

■ track record in the thematic area of the network

■ duration of involvement in the thematic area of the network

Rules for members

In order to regulate membership in a network, it is advisable to have rules covering the following points:

■ duties and responsibilities of members

■ rights of every member, for example, voting and election rights or participation in decision-making processes, access to information, etc.

■ membership fees (☞section 6.4.2)

■ rules for sanctions on or exclusion of members in case of conflict,

insulting behaviour, betrayal, and other unacceptable behaviour

Varying commitment of members

The general rule for every network should be that all members not only receive information from the network but also contribute to its activities. This is a difficult goal to attain and the reality in most

networks – as well as in communities of practice or electronic communities – is that some members will always be less active than others.

A simple model that demonstrates the commitment of members and can be applied to many different networks and communities distinguishes three layers. In the middle, there is the core team, often the group that has set up the network and feels responsible for its fate. The next circle comprises members who are involved in the network’s activities in an operational and more passive way. The lurkers ‘lurk’ in the outer circles. Most of the time, lurkers are not directly involved in network activities but will rather tend to observe what the network is doing.

Although it is not acceptable for a member to always be a lurker, it should be accepted that there are different levels of commitment and that there may be reasons for what appears to be ‘lurking’. A member may be more passive because of lack of resources, difficulties in understanding the language, or lack of interest in current activities. At a later stage, however, that same member may become more involved and make valuable contributions. Experience also shows that lurkers can serve as important connectors to other networks or organisations.

Figure 3: Core group, members, and lurkers