Understanding+Connected+Intelligence

//JA Note: 4.7.07 to KM & VA. Just bolded items that seemed relevant to our latest email exchanges. Asterisked. Suggest if don't agree please unbold or add another * if you do to make key points pop.// = = =Understanding Connected Intelligence:= = = =What does the Research Tell Us?=

Ana Viseau (2000) believes that Francisco Varela's concept that "intelligence, is inter-subjective, embodied and the result of the circulation of ideas, language and thought between people (in Viseau 2000:Varela, 1991; see also Vygotsky, 1978) is crucial for the understanding of Connected Intelligence. She argues that it is the intelligence in groups, not individuals that is the norm. If this is so, she continues that by "creating social environments which are favourable to the circulation and discussion of ideas CI enhances and connects the bodies, and knowledge of the participants.

In his paper, //Collective intelligence: a Keystone in knowledge management//, (2006) Andre Boder defines collective intelligence as a "well-structured process" that allows an organization to redefine knowledge management as the function that actually generates the value of the organization. He argues that rather than seeing KM as a function that supports the business, it should be seen a criticial componenet of goal oriented action such as complex problem solving and innovation. KM, he says is challenged with valuing "the interactions taking place in the innovation process and to organize them into a coherent system." This system in organizations, Boder argues, must be constructed so that it is made explicit so that all members understand what the system is about and who does what.

There are many slighty different definitions of CI floating around, but the way we'll define the concept for this paper combines Boder and Viseau's two ideas. Firstly, CI involves the coming together and sharing of knowledge amongst a group and secondly, it involves action or goal oriented activity yielding new knowledge as a key contribution to organizations.

[|De Kerckhove] (1997) noted the following:

"Throughout inter-connective strategies which give people the possibility to share their own information through evermore sophisticated methods; we are presented with what I recently described as “connective intelligence”, which makes auto-organisational strategies a central part of the net. In these platforms there is no limit to the contents which may be published and one may share them with the entire planet, attracting more specifically those who have similar interests to our own. Tagging is a form of social networking refinement, and gives the possibility to create a plural and extended conscience." (p. xxxi)

(year: page or para.no please) [Quotes are to be indented and not italicised, no quotations marks required JM] JA: Can't see how to indent here so using quote marks. Final doc will indent.

Granovetter (1973) found that relationships are important for information acquisition and Wittengenstein (1953) noted that knowledge creation is a social process. Further research conducted by Cross & Borgatti (2003) noted that there are three relational characteristics that impact the information seeking behaviour in personal networks at work. Their research involved collecting social network data on groups in two different organisations, using a combination of a survey followed up by clarifying interviews.

===***The results indicate that simply connecting people may not promote learning, but beyond that, people also need to: - know (1) and value (2) what members of their network know and - have timely access (3) to them.**===

==

Morrison, Tenkasi and Mohrman ( 2003) conducted a study that examined eight organisations and how social networks impacted the organisations’ ability to implement organisational change.

***They found that while hierarchical information sharing networks were not effective in creating the knowledge needed to adapt to change; informal cross-functional networks were.**
This supports Snowden’s **(2005)** finding that informal networks are much more effective than imposed networks in creating new productive knowledge.

===*These findings suggest the need for organisations undergoing change (which is every organisation every day) to enable networks to self-create and self-direct in order to support the learning necessary to ensure a successful transition.=== ==

==
 * What we know about learning in social networks is evolving quickly and constantly. What we know is very hopeful and rich in terms of its possibilities for learning and application in the field of adult learning. It is clear that the use of social network analysis can help organizations identify many types of connections (Granovetter 1973; Nhahpiet years?), structural properties (Granovetter 1973; Nahapiet year; Anklam year, Droege year), agent roles (Borgatti & Cross 2003), relational characteristics (Cross and Sproull year; Anklam and Cross year), types of networks (Morrison year; Mohrman year; Brown year & Druguid year), types of network boundaries (Araujo, Mohrman, Brown & Druguid, year), and barriers to healthy network structure( Szulanki, Anklam Cross, Gulas). The ability to identify all this through social network analysis does not provide solutions in and of itself, but it does provide a snapshot in time allowing organisations to see what has heretofore been invisible. The current research is shedding considerable light on the creation of solutions for organisations.**( Mulliner, 2006)

Supporting evolving learning about social networks and network theory here is link to blogged notes from New Network Theory Conferene, University of Amsterdam Jun 28-30, 2007. See especially presentation on call for science research marketplaces. [|JA blog post] attempts to pull out some themes.

//Note if references are to individual writers or to groups of writers using (Surname year) or (Surname, Surname & Surname year; or Surname et al year) JM//

==