Social Networks

There is a broad body of theoretical and practical work on the nature of social networks in organisations, some of the best and most recent coming from Robert L. Cross (2001) of the University of Virginia, formerly a researcher with the Institute for Knowledge Management. The basis of social network analysis (SNA) is to work with a population of individuals each of whom answers a series of questions about each other individual within the network. These range from basic questions about information sourcing, through aspects of comprehension and trust. The results are plotted on a network diagram which shows the centrality or otherwise of each individual within the network in respect of each question. Measures of centrality and connectivity are also created and the resulting figures and diagrams provide a powerful diagnostic tool in respect of network-based communication with a firm. SNA also allows modelling of impact, for example removing the most networked individual and seeing the consequences of that removal for communication.

SNA between individuals is dependent on the truthfulness of the individuals’ answers, and there are non-trivial problems here in that the results are visible to colleagues and superiors. The author of this chapter prefers to use SNA between significant entities within an organisation. An entity is a significant actor; mainly communities but this can also include powerful individuals or roles (the two are not necessarily the same). The same process is applied as for individuals but where the entity is a community either a proxy, or a poll or a workshop is used to elicit the answers. An additional process is the use of the Cynefin model to provide a perspective on the space that will stimulate the identity of informal as well as formal communities, crisis groups as well as committees. In addition the anecdote capture techniques earlier identified as a means of discovering KDPs can also provide substantial evidence of the existence of entities.

The resulting models permit a deeper understanding of community interaction, and can also separate, for example, the formal and informal aspects of a committee meeting or conference. The results can be used to determine a policy for community formation in which naturally occurring communities can now be used for knowledge management, rather than attempting to impose some ideal model that may, or may not be capable of operation. We also start to see differences between organisations, to take a recent example in which the core informal community in one part of the organisation was a cohort group comprising a year’s intake into the organisation who had maintained contact; it was the group that most people referred to for meaning and trust, whereas the formal organisation was used for information. In a closely related section of the same organisation a social club provided the same function. More conventional approaches to building communities of practice would have first designed the ideal form and function of a knowledge community; far less effective than using established trusted relationships.