RAND_MR1382

also characterize some sprawling terrorist and criminal networks.
WHAT MAKES A NETWORK EFFECTIVE, BESIDES ORGANIZATION? 19
What holds a network together? What makes it function effectively? The answers
involve much more than the organizational aspects emphasized above. While there is no
standard methodology for analyzing network forms of organization, our familiarity with
the theoretical literature and with the practices seen among netwar actors indicates that
the design and performance of such networks depend on what happens across five levels
of analysis (which are also levels of practice): 20
• Organizational level—its organizational design
• Narrative level—the story being told
• Doctrinal level—the collaborative strategies and methods
• Technological level—the information systems
• Social level—the personal ties that assure loyalty and trust.
The strength of a network, perhaps especially the all-channel design, depends on its
functioning well across all five levels. The strongest networks will be those in which the
organizational design is sustained by a winning story and a well-defined doctrine, and
in which all this is layered atop advanced communications systems and rests on strong
personal and social ties at the base. Each level, and the overall design, may benefit from
redundancy and diversity. Each level’s characteristics are likely to affect those of the
other levels.
These are not idle academic issues. Getting a network form “right”—like getting a
hierarchical or market form “right”—can be a delicate enterprise. For practitioners
trying to organize a new network or adjust one that already exists, various options may
merit consideration—and their assessment should assure that all the organizational,
narrative, doctrinal, technological, and social levels are well-designed and integrated.
This applies to netwar and counternetwar actors across the spectrum. However, our
discussion emphasizes evidence from social netwar actors, mainly activist NGOs,
because they have been more open and expressive than have terrorist, criminal, and
other violent, secretive actors. The discussion draws on some of the cases presented in
earlier chapters, but also affords an opportunity to bring in other recent examples.
Each of these levels of analysis deserves more elaboration than we give here. Our goals
are to get people to think in these terms and point the way, even though we cannot
pretend to offer final methodological guidance.