Thinking about co-design embedded within a network presents additional challenges. Ideally, a design team creates many spaces to engage in co-design – both online and in-person – that allow for maximum input and creativity as well as respond to shifting levels of availability/capacity to participate.
What follows is a brainstorm I did with my sister, Licia, of the list of formations (groups within a network) that enable this. Furthermore, these formations can be organized from a central group - like a design team - or self-organized as they emerge from network members. [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
[ap_spacing spacing_height="30px"]
Formation
Definition
Advisory group
Small group that lasts for the length of the project to advise and provide context for the design work; similar to design team but broader
Ambassador
One person does a one-on-one, then takes on work to do other one-on-ones, or takes information to broader group; “train-the-trainer” might fit here
Conference
Large group comes together with potential breakout groups, usually in-person
Design team
An ad hoc group that meets throughout the duration of the project (or sub-scope within it) to provide planning insight
Innovation fund
Selected group of projects that are funded for specific outcomes
One-on-one
A conversation between two people
Ongoing focus group
A representatively diverse group of people assembled to participate in a guided discussion about a particular product before it is launched, or to provide ongoing feedback on a political campaign, television series, etc.
Outreach team
Spreads the word about design process and reflections to rest of network
Pop-up focus group
A representative group of people that meets once to provide structured feedback on a specific topic
Seek external expert
Someone reaches out of core network for advice or thought leadership
Small group experiment
An ad hoc group that meets to engage with and provide feedback on a project, product, or part of it
Structured interview
A one-on-one with very specific outcomes
Webinar
An online lecture with potential Q+A
Working group
Small group of people who meet regularly with specific outcomes in mind; could be called a committee.
[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
We encourage you to comment on this post so we can hear about your thoughts and experience.
Network governance is the idea that decision-making that is currently lodged in representative bodies such as congress or city councils can be shifted into self-organizing networks. This shift has the potential to massively increase participation and inclusion in policy making and, at the same time, ensure that policy making becomes more innovative, experimental, and capable of learning and transformation. Network governance has the potential to enable all of us to be part of co-creating a world that is good for all of us.[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
Network governance can generate forms of governance that are equitable and inclusive, quick and creative in responding to issues and problems, and capable of tackling the complex and planet-threatening issues of our time.[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
For example, food policy councils, at their best, are cross sector networks that include residents, government and educational representatives, non-profits and food related businesses. They research policy options for things such as rules regarding urban chickens, handling of food waste and support for community gardens, adapt these policies to their locale, and then present policy suggestions to city councils. It seems a small step to empower such councils to make the decisions themselves.[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
Several new developments have made the shift to network governance possible.[ap_spacing spacing_height="25px"]
First, new self-organizing structures for network governance are being piloted. These include organizing decision-making into (usually small) work groups calledcircles: a small, diverse set of individuals who interact as peers and who care deeply about an issue take responsibility for a specific policy initiative - anyone can join the circle. The circle researches the issue and often engages many additional people in a co-design process to generate a draft policy proposal (through the use of technology which is discussed in the following section). Governance networks may have hundreds of circles operating at any one time, with many people involved in more than one circle. [ap_spacing spacing_height="25px"]
Then the circle uses an innovative decision-making process such as co-design, advice or consent. In the advice process, anyone who would be impacted by the decision has an opportunity (with a deadline) to give feedback on the proposal, which the circle tries to incorporate. The circle has final decision-making power, though if the proposal is controversial the time set to review the policy will be short. The idea is to try something out that is “good enough for now.” [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]In co-design or co-creation processes, diverse participants come together and design a new way of doing something, with decision-making woven into the design process, which then moves directly into a pilot phase. For example, a group of residents and organizations may join together to set up a new structure, such as an Innovation Fund that provides seed funds to community projects. This expands the definition of policy making to any collaborative act that contributes to community co-creation. Sometimes co-design is combined with advice or consent processes.[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
Circles and advice/consent processes are currently being used in hundreds of innovative businesses and are now being piloted in a increasing number of networks.[ap_spacing spacing_height="25px"]
Helping participants shift to network values[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Network governance only becomes transformative when the underlying culture shifts. Network values/behaviors include interacting as peers, dismantling hierarchy and racism, embracing diversity and inclusion, letting go of control, becoming comfortable with uncertainty, seeing everything as an experiment, having space for reflection and learning. Network participants are much more likely to be able to make these shifts in the intimacy of circles, where they can track their progress on these through simple group surveys, then get support for change.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
The use of technology[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
Next, the use of technology is making cross sector participation possible. Using zoom video conferencing sessions with breakout rooms for discussion combined with the use of google docs for gathering ideas, reflections and feedback makes involvement of many people possible. This can be combined with prioritizing and polling platforms such as sli.do and platforms such as loomio and participative budgeting platforms. In addition, innovators such as vTawain have used other platforms such as polis.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Networks of networks[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
The third development is the development of networks of networks for sharing, spreading and learning. These networks of networks are often focused on a specific issue area. For example, the hundreds of food policy councils in the U.S. have state networks, and the state networks are linked through a national network. Both state and national networks have frequent virtual (and occasional face-to-face) learning sessions where they share insights and strategies about specific policy areas and about other topics of relevance. Other networks of networks are perfecting communities of practice or learning clusters so networks are supported in their efforts to do system shifting work. [ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
Other networks of networks are convened around cross cutting issues or are bringing people from different (sometimes related) issue areas together for more systemic understanding. For example, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has been convening networks working on different system elements it calls the Culture of Health (food access, housing, wellbeing, prison pipelines, etc). Other networks of networks are convening to learn more about networks and transformation or about racial justice and equity. These create pathways for viralness, large scale impact and transformation. For example, the use of zoom has spread through the nonprofit world at lightning speed, dramatically increasing the amount of collaboration happening.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
What would it look like?[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
Imagine policy councils for every aspect of life: housing, health, recreation, education, etc. with most people involved in 2-3 circles at a time but providing advice on dozens or hundreds of proposals a year.
Most governance networks are likely to be local or regional. However, it would be exciting to explore how the networks of network might work nationally and internationally to solve huge, complex problems.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
How do we get there?[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
Many networks already exhibit some but not all of the characteristics of network governance. By working as a catalyst network, we can help interested networks move to a more complete network governance form. We can create a network of networks interested in moving their networks to the next level and jointly develop a model of key elements of network governance, including case studies of network governance in practice.[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
The following video is about 20 minutes long and provides a short overview of network strategies. It was done for the Food Policy Network State Networks, who graciously agreed to let me share it.
The video emphasizes the importance of being part of networks of networks and of catalyzing self-organizing to move us to a more experimental, learning and viral space. Increasingly I’m seeing networks of networks and self-organizing as the key factors needed to shift systems.
Last fall, I heard about an online educational portal called Plus Acumen, which advertises itself as the “world’s school for social change” and offers several free classes. Many of their offerings are geared towards providing practical and accessible tools that people involved in nonprofits, community groups, and networks can use to improve their efforts.
After looking through the course catalogue, I found and enrolled in a class called Systems Practice, led by Rob Ricigliano of The Omidyar Group. The class was insightful, and lead students through an intuitive series of exercises exploring systems through creating a framing question, identifying forces, creating a systems map using Kumu, and crafting a strategy rooted in leverage points.
Throughout the class, I gained a general framework to use to better understand how systems work, and tools that can improve the work I do.
Classes like this are important for advancing the practice of networks by integrating a holistic way of thinking about systems change with tools and strategies that networks can use to be more effective. As more networks blend systems thinking into their core strategies, the possibilities of accelerating transformational change expand, and areas for new tools, practices, and collaborations become clear.
If you’re interested in these items, I’d suggest taking the course, convening a team of people to enroll in the class with you, and share your learnings along the way, as well as ways you are integrating this into your network’s strategy.
“Relationship is the fundamental truth of this world of appearance,”
– Tagore[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
Over the past several years of supporting networks for social change, we at IISC have been constantly evolving our understanding of what is new and different when we call something a network, as opposed to a coalition, collaborative or alliance. On the surface, much can look the same, and one might also say that coalitions, collaboratives and alliances are simply different forms of networks. While this is true, it is also the case that not every collaborative form maximizes network effects, including small world reach, rapid dissemination, adaptability, resilience and system change. In this regard, experience shows that a big difference maker is when participants in a network (or an organization, for that matter) embrace new ways of seeing, thinking, and doing. The following revised list continues to evolve as our own practice and understanding does, and it speaks to a number of network principles to guide thinking and action: [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
1. Adaptability instead of control
Thinking in terms of networks means leading with an interest in adaptation over time. Given the complexity of the situations we are often called to help address, it is difficult for any actor or “leader” to know exactly what must be done, much less keep a diverse and decentralized social structure moving in lockstep. Iterative design and adaptive strategy serve us better. [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
2. Contribution before credentials
You may have heard the story about the custodial staff person in a shoe company who anonymously submitted his idea for a new shoe design during a company-wide contest, and won. Or the homeschooled teenager who contributed tremendously helpful information on nitrogen pollution to an open and crowdsourced call for research. “Expertise” and seniority can serve as a bottle neck and buzz kill in many organizations, where ego gets in the way of excellence and vital experience. If we are looking for new and better thinking, it should not matter from whence it comes. [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
“Your generosity is more important than your perfection.”
-Seth Godin
[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]3. Giving first, not taking
You’ll see it when you create it. Often people are drawn to networks by the promise of abundance, but stand back and wait for something to happen. The key to generativity is generosity, to being first to make a humble offering – of ideas, truth, courage, attention and other resources. The fear of having an already scarce pie became further divided is fulfilled by the failure to give, to give freely and fully of our experience, gifts and excess capacities. For more on the importance of giving, see Adam Grant’s work.[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
4. Resilience and redundancy instead of rock stardom
You see it on sports teams all the time. When the star player goes down, if the team is built around said star, so goes the team. Resilient networks are built upon redundancy of function and a richness of interconnections, so that if one node goes away, the network can adjust and continue its work[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
5. Diversity and divergence rather than the usual suspects and forced agreement
New thinking comes from the meeting of different fields, experience, and perspectives. Preaching to the choir gets us the same old (and tired) hymn. Furthermore, innovation is not a result of dictating or choosing from what is, but expanding options, moving from convergent (and what often passes for strategic) thinking to “design thinking.” And network action is not simply about everyone having to engage in one big effort, but cooperation and parallel play[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
6. Intricacy and flow not bottlenecks and hoarding
Networks are key to supporting life and liveliness – life is after all a network. A constant threat to aliveness is rigidity, hoarding and exclusion. Economically we are seeing plenty of evidence of this, pushing us towards what Jane Jacobs once called socio-economic “necrosis.” With hyper-concentration of resources, patterns of exclusion and growing inequality, we see the entire system put at risk. The antidote is robust, diversified local networks that are connected to other such networks, which are collectively able to move resources of many kinds fluidly from and to all parts of the social body.[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
Keep reaching out, keep interconnecting, keep things flowing.
[ap_spacing spacing_height="10px"]
[ap_spacing spacing_height="30px"]7. Self-organization and emergence rather than permission and the pursuit of perfection
As with any complex living system, when a group of people comes together, we cannot always know what it is that they will create. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Vying for the predictable means short-changing ourselves of new possibilities, one of the great promises of networks. Furthermore, network effects and change stem from many different experiments rather than looking for the single best answer. [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
8. Shift focus from core to the periphery
As living entities, networks are defined by the nature and quality of their edges. The core of the network tends to be made up of those who are most connected to others in the network, as well as interested in and engaged in the work (albeit in some cases through exclusionary dynamics of power and privilege). Those on the edge, or periphery, may be less connected and engaged, and also bring considerable strength, to the extent that they provide lessons about adaptation, a willingness and ability to play in different spaces, and have connections to other important domains. In many cases, there is strength in following the lead of the margins. As Ceasar McDowell says:[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
“If you take a tent and you stake it far out at the margins … the middle is always covered. And the further out you stake it the stronger the structure you get. And why is that? Because in our systems and our social systems the people at the margins are actually living with the failures of the systems. And they are creating adaptive solutions to them. So when we design to take care of them we build stronger systems for everyone.” [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
[ap_spacing spacing_height="30px"]9. From working in isolation to working with others and/or out loud
I recently spoke to a leader of an amazing organization in Pennsylvania who was bemoaning the situation where a number of his newer staff thought that “getting the job done” meant paying attention to the tasks on their list and working on them in an independent and efficient way. What they were not doing was involving others, communicating about what they were working on, where they were in their process and what they were learning as a result. One network mantra I have heard is “Never work alone.”Or to put a more positive spin on it, “Work in good company.”Why? Because our thinking and ideas are made better by others. Furthermore, sharing our work is crucial since communication is the lifeblood of networks (and networked organizations) if they are to be intelligently adaptive and resilient to changing and challenging times. Even it we are physically alone, we can show and share our work in helpful ways, to ourselves and others, using virtual tools. [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
10. From “Who’s the Leader?” to “We’re the Leaders!”
Leadership can be a confusing and fraught concept. In certain quarters there is still glorification of and deference given to heroic individuals, with little recognition of the interdependent nature of, well, everything! The late Mila N. Baker made the case that the individualized and command-and-control leadership lexicon is grossly insufficient for our changing, complex, and interconnected world. She promoted the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) IT architectures as models for thinking about leadership and how people organize themselves. In P2P arrangements, everyone becomes a generative and recipient node in a network, and has easy access to other nodes. This embodiment of leadership is stymied by rigid hierarchies, fixed positional authority and purely transactional mindsets (without regard to underlying and authentic relationships). Flipping this script means seeking arrangements where everyone leads and follows, trust and reciprocity are fundamental values and thriving is linked to connection. [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
What might the integration of these principles do to the way you lead and do your work? What opportunities and outcomes might be created? [ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]“Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer.”
E.M. Forster, from Howard’s End
[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]This is an excerpt from the final post in a series of five focused on networks for change in education and learning that have appeared on the Education Week and Next Generation Learning Challenges websites.
In this series on network design and network thinking, I explored the power and promise of networks as residing in how connection and flow contribute to life, liveliness and learning. See, especially, Connection is Fundamental.
In Why Linking Matters, I looked at how certain networks can more optimally create what are known as “network effects,” including small world reach, rapid dissemination, resilience, and adaptation.
I also noted, in Structure Matters in particular, that living systems–including classrooms, schools, school districts, and communities–are rooted in patterns of connection and flow. That’s why shifts in connections–between people, groups, and institutions–as well as flows of various kinds of resources can equate with systemic change, and ideally they can lead to greater health (in other words, equity, prosperity, sustainability).
Networks can also deliver myriad benefits to individual participants, including: inspiration; mutual support; learning and skill development; greater access to information, funding, and other resources; greater systemic or contextual awareness; breaking out of isolation and being a part of something larger; amplification of one’s voice and efforts; and new partnerships and joint projects.
It’s also true, however, that not every network or network activity creates all of these effects and outcomes. The last two posts looked at two factors that contribute to whether networks are able to deliver robust value to individual participants and the whole, including network structure and what form leadership takes. Networks are by no means a panacea to social and environmental issues and can easily replicate and exacerbate social inequities and environmentally extractive practice. So values certainly have a place, as does paying close attention to dynamics of power and privilege.
It is also the case that individual and collective behavior on a day-to-day basis have a lot to say about what networks are able to create.
The following is a list of 25 behaviors for you to consider as part of your network practice as an educator:
Weave connections and close triangles to create more intricacy in the network. Closing triangles means introducing people to one another, as opposed to networking for one’s own self, essentially a mesh or distributed structure rather than a hub-and-spoke structure.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Create connections across boundaries/dimensions of difference. Invite and promote diversity in the network, which can contribute to resilience and innovation.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Promote and pay attention to equity throughout the network. Equity here includes ensuring everyone has access to the resources and opportunities that can improve the quality of life and learning. Equity impact assessments are one helpful tool on this front.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Name and work with power dynamics and unearned privilege in the direction of equity.
Be aware of how implicit bias impacts your thinking and actions in the network. Become familiar with and practice de-biasing strategies.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Think, learn, and work out loud, in the company of others or through virtual means. This contributes to the abundance of resources and learning in the network.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Don’t hoard or be a bottleneck. Keep information and other resources flowing in the network.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Identify and articulate your own needs and share them with others. Making requests can bring a network to life as people generally like to be helpful![ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Stay curious and ask questions; inquire of others to draw out common values, explicit and tacit knowledge, and other assets.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Make ongoing generous offers to others, including services, information, connections.
“… Keep reaching out, keep bringing in./This is how we are going to live for a long time: not always,/for every gardener knows that after the digging, after/the planting, after the long season of tending and growth, the harvest comes.”
Before we go any further down the road of this blog, we need to point out that network approaches cannot become transformative unless the network explicitly works on dismantling white supremacy culture and racism.
This is because networks only flourish when people in them are able to interact as peers, valuing everyone’s input and involvement. In addition, many aspects of dominant or white supremacy culture hold us back from reaping the benefits of networks, but are so pervasive as to be hidden from our awareness. Tema Okun has one of the best lists of these cultural characteristics which include (the next two sections are quoted verbatim from her article):[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
1. Perfectionism
Little appreciation expressed among people for the work that others are doing; appreciation that is expressed usually directed to those who get most of the credit anyway[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
more common is to point out either how the person or work is inadequate - or even more common, to talk to others about the inadequacies of a person or their work without ever talking directly to them[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
mistakes are seen as personal, i.e. they reflect badly on the person making them as opposed to being seen for what they are – mistakes[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
making a mistake is confused with being a mistake, doing wrong with being wrong[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
little time, energy, or money put into reflection or identifying lessons learned that can improve practice, in other words little or no learning from mistakes[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
tendency to identify what’s wrong; little ability to identify, name, and appreciate what’s right[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
often internally felt, in other words the perfectionist fails to appreciate her own good work, more often pointing out his faults or ‘failures,’ focusing on inadequacies and mistakes rather than learning from them; the person works with a harsh and constant inner critic
[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]
2. Sense of Urgency
continued sense of urgency that makes it difficult to take time to be inclusive, encourage democratic and/or thoughtful decision-making, to think long-term, to consider consequences[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
frequently results in sacrificing potential allies for quick or highly visible results, for example sacrificing interests of communities of color in order to win victories for white people (seen as default or norm community)[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
reinforced by funding proposals which promise too much work for too little money and by funders who expect too much for too little[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Others are: defensiveness, quantity over quality, worship of the written word, only one right way, paternalism, "either/or" thinking, power hoarding, fear of open conflict, individualism, "I’m the only one", objectivity, and right to comfort.
“[Organizations] who unconsciously use these characteristics as their norms and standards make it difficult, if not impossible, to open the door to other cultural norms and standards. As a result, many of our organizations, while saying we want to be multi-cultural, really only allow other people and cultures to come in if they adapt or conform to already existing cultural norms. Being able to identify and name the cultural norms and standards you want is a first step to making room for a truly multi-cultural organization.” [ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Please share experiences you have had or how your organization or network is working to dismantle racism and dominant culture.
Not all networks are the same! If you are interested in transforming systems so that they are good for everyone, then you are probably helping people co-create a System Shifting Network.
[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]If you are not familiar with network maps, here is a short guide: [ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
The circles represent individuals.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
The colors represent diversity - you can make maps that show geography, type of organization the individual is part of, race/ethnicity, interests, etc.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
The lines represent relationships. You can draw maps where the lines represent different relationships: that the individuals know each other, have worked with each other, or want to work with each other.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
The network has a substantial core or center of diverse individuals who know each other or are only a few steps away from others.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
The grey dots represent people in the periphery, that is, only one or two people know that individual. People in the periphery are often resource people that can be drawn on as needed, or people from other networks. The periphery should have 3-5 times the number of people in the core.
[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]Here’s what makes a System Shifting Network more powerful in creating change than most types of networks. [ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Groups of people in System Shifting Networks (SSN's) are continually forming new collaborations to try to learn more about the system they are disrupting and the system they are shifting to. Often SSNs have dozens or even hundreds of these collaborative projects underway at any one time, and many people are in more than one project. Because of this overlap, innovations generated in one collaboration often quickly spread to many other collaborations. Think, for example, about the way the use of zoom.us videoconferencing has spread among people in networks.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
People in System Shifting Networks are continually bringing new people, especially those often under-represented, into their collaborations. These individuals often bring in new perspectives and make people challenge their assumptions, often resulting in much more effective projects.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
In these collaborative projects, people have to scramble to develop new skills and learn new ways of working together. People in these collaboratives work as peers, even though they may identify a coordinator. Everyone in the project learns how to organize and implement a project, and thus there are plenty of new network leaders capable to initiate new projects. So leadership is continually expanding. [ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
Projects are seen as experiments - a way to get more insight into the system they are shifting. They learn what works and do more of it.[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
People in projects take time to share what they are learning with others in the network and in other networks so that everyone benefits from every project, whether it was a “failure” or a success.
[ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]But how do we develop System Shifting Networks? Most networks go through 4 stages: [ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
STAGE 1: Many networks start as scattered clusters among individuals. Often the relationships in these clusters are informal - people talk to each other in the grocery store and at their child’s soccer game .[ap_spacing spacing_height="5px"]
STAGE 2: Then some individual, organization or group decides to start the formation of an intentional network focused on a particular issue, problem, sector or geography. They become a network hub. They reach out to others they know are interested in the issue and find out about their needs and interests. Often networks stay in this stage, and the hub broadcasts useful information to the interested individuals and has conferences and webinars so network participants can gain new information. However, if a network stays at this stage it loses many of the advantages of networks and will not be capable of changing a system.
STAGE 3: The next stage moves the network to a self-organizing phase. With a lot of support (which we will go into in detail about in future blog posts), individuals or groups in the network start noticing some action that might make a difference and form a collaborative project. Sometimes a network does a system analysis and identifies leverage points and forms working groups to generate experiments in that area. [ap_spacing spacing_height="15px"]
STAGE 4: The final stage - a System Shifting Network - emerges when a substantial support structure - communications, learning, restructured money and resources and just-in-time tracking shared with participants - is developed. Projects get larger and have more impact.
[ap_spacing spacing_height="20px"]What stage is your network? Please share in the comments section below.
