Reader+Reactions

We've made the case for learning through connecting intelligences.
Please share your reactions here.

Mick Yates, July 31st 2007
Here are a few thoughts from my research on how we could build on today's understanding of Network Theory **to** **help make Networks more useful**. After all, we all spend hours on web 2.0 sites, but one wonders what we get as a result?

Bryan and Joyce ("//Mobilizing Minds//", 2007) talk of the need to create "Formal Networks" to break through today's organizational complexities, hierarchies and "matrix mess" (the latter, my words not theirs). It seems however that they don't quite hit the spot on a few points.

1. **Purpose**. Effective organizational Networks have a human purpose which must be pre-defined and then its outputs become both useful and measurable. This is of course not always the case with Networks studied in the scientific literature. Nor is it immediately obvious when defining Networks simply in terms of “roles” or “linkages”. Note, though, that this means that a **//purpose//** is defined, not a specific outcome in the "management by objectives" sense. And, in some cases, such as Procter & Gamble's "Connect and Develop" R&D approach, the overall purpose is clear, as is the request for input to solve specific scientific issues - but how the "network" actually behaves is not directly managed by P&G individuals. And see the comments below on weak links.

2. **Nodal identity to drive innovation**. The skills, knowledge, motivations, problems, geographic location, time linkages, goals and beliefs of every member in the Network are critical to how they interact. This goes well beyond a catalogue of job descriptions within an Enterprise, or a catalogue of linkages between individuals (which many proponents of Social Network theory focus on - who is a node and who is a hub is less important, in my view, than what they do). Identity demands a deep data based understanding of the characteristics of all Network members. Publicising these identities and proactively connecting “like” individuals will help form “affiliation clusters” from which useful ideas will emerge.

3. **Trustworthiness**. Within Networks, some members get to be known as experts or “authorities”. This concept raises issues about how we can trust their information. Why do we trust Google? Why do we trust experts? I think that the combination of the nodal identity of an authority (which is transparently available to all affiliation cluster members) and the actionability of the links within the cluster contribute to a Network’s “trustworthiness”. The trustworthiness of an authority also relates to information flow – as a net exporter of information which is consistently and practically actionable.

4. **Searchability to create new knowledge.** This is critical in finding existing data, generating new knowledge and thus delivering on the purpose of the Network. Examples of the types of insight we may be seeking include Informational ( “Where are all the good Thai restaurants in town?”), Intellectual (“What can I learn from the local history”?), Actionable ( “How can I get better sales results in this country”?), Relational (“How can I work better with my local fellow employees?”), Judgmental –(“How can I decide the real truth in the local politics”?), and Contextual –(“How can I integrate the varied aspects of my life?”). It is not necessary to predict an exact search path through a “**Small World**” Network – just to start it on the right trajectory. Dodds, Muhamed and Watts note that successful search is conducted primarily through weaker links, does not require highly connected “hubs” to succeed, and disproportionately relies on professional relationships. Thus new knowledge is often generated best from “**weak links**” (i.e. links outside of one’s normal and “strong” work group links, family etc.). And one must also remember the importance of "structural holes"...

5. **Actionability**. Towards the goal of designing Networks where something new actually happens as a result of their existence, we must focus on actionability. The links between members of the Network must be actionable - meaning that they have practical value in real interactions. This also implies that searchability occurs when a preponderance of links within an affiliation cluster are “actionable” (i.e. have useful value). For example, I might know the Prime Minister of India because of my firm's investments in that country, but I doubt I could get him to write a book review on a social network text!

I hope this might spark a few comments and critiques.

Mick Yates - [|www.leader-values.com]

Henry Grant
, via email exchange August 7, 2007

Well done and nice references/appendix.

I liked the quote from InnoCentive that good problem solvers had a diverse range of scientific interests and were able to solve problems at the boundary of their fields of expertise. I read somewhere that Ford Motor company did a study and found that their best engineers were the ones that had used tools and built things as a child or teenager. Those engineers that had a mostly academic and theoretical background were not the best problem solvers.

Here’s my 2 cents on ONA and I acknowledge that I don’t know didly about this stuff but it’s INTERESTING. The section “Connecting enhances personal performance” has the following: “The first is structural: High performers have a great tendency to position themselves at key points in a network, and they leverage the network around them better when implementing their plans.”

I’ve often found that reverse is true at least in an engineering setting. A smart, capable performer does not position his/herself, but rather people go-to that person for the how-to and technology transfer and a network forms around him/her. It’s as if the business organization has its formal hierarchy of management and in actuality the work gets done within another structure.

Henry

Thanks for your comments - your last remark is dead on - the social network, where and how work gets done is separate from the formal organization structure.

That quote then does not communicate the idea well so we need to address for the future. People do not position themselves, rather they emerge as a node or hub in a network due to their being sought out for their expertise.

How would you describe how these experts become known to others in the organization as the "go to people?"

Vicki

I think you’re right, they EMERGE and a network forms around them (hub, star, mesh, whatever). As projects and challenges emerge so do the experts, some persist for quite a while others come up then fade only to re-emerge again. How they become known – I think is project and task related and those employees communicating amoung themselves within the project will generally spot these folks after a period of time. At [ a "big 5" consultancy] we use the term “subject matter experts” (SME). At the start of an engagement one of the tasks was to identify and seek them out during the initial stages, get their contact info etc and build a relationship with them.

Henry@decilog.com