networks

Archive

August 14, 2016 by Patti

Knowledge in the Network

Off the shelf

Pulled off the bookshelf last month

The past few months I have been working on a few different projects for nonprofits, initially focused on network mapping or the development of a NetWorkShop, but slowly morphing into (or taking sideroads down) knowledge management. Fortunately I have a good bookshelf and a good network, and a long history of my own. A surprising number of elements came together in both cases, and I quite happily brought some lessons from the (mostly) corporate KM world into some nonprofit work.

Especially pleasing was to see an alignment between Harold Jarche’s networked learning model (recently updated and republished in his recentblog post) and the three types of social change networks from Net Gains by Madeleine Taylor and Peter Plastrik. Harold’s model is focused on learning and personal knowledge mastery and acknowledges that we live in multiple networks and that these networks have different structures:

networked-learning-model Jarche

  • Our loose-knit social networks offer us a fairly large number of informal, or weak, ties.
  • Within our communities of practice, we develop some strong ties, so the network becomes a more trusted space
  • To really get work done, our ties need to be strongest and we may need some formal structure

One version of this graphic shows little network maps illustrating whether the ties between nodes are strong or weak. Having seen this in the past, I found it this time while I was researching working out loud. What really worked for me was, obviously, the way that Harold has so neatly integrated the network foundation into the model.

Because I’ve been in the nonprofit space and the immediate client need was to introduce network concepts and network thinking, I immediately saw the connection to the Taylor/Plastrik model’s differentiation of network types as connectivity, alignment, and production. Now, the purpose of this model is to provide insight for people who are creating, building networks so the intent of the model is a bit different. (I’ve also included the key tasks for a network builder in each type of network.)

Connectivity Network Alignment Network Production Network
Definition Connects people to allow easy flow of and access to information and transactions Aligns people to develop and spread an identity and collective value proposition Fosters joint action for specialized outcomes by aligned people.
Key task of network builder Weaving — Helping people make connections, increase ease of sharing information Facilitating — helping people to explore potential shared identity and value propositions Coordinating — helping people plan and implement collaborative action

So you see that it did not take a great leap to see the similarities in these. Our social networks are all about connectivity and access to ideas; we align ourselves in communities of practice with those people who have common interests and who want to share more formally; and, when it comes time to set goals and get some work done, we need more structure and people to coordinate the work.

I love the congruence in seeing these models come together; I wouldn’t try too hard to make them agree in all aspects. What I like is that they both use sound principles from our knowledge about how networks work, the underlying principles of network structure, to inform action about using networks to enhance knowledge.

(Net Gains was written in 2006. Last year, Pete and Madeleine collaborated with third author, John Cleveland, to update and expand that into Connecting to Change the World.)

Share

Archive

September 27, 2014 by Patti

Connecting to Change the World

I’ve worked with Madeleine Taylor and Pete Plastrik on a number of network analysis projects over the past four years. They were writing  Net Gains, a handbook for network builders, at the same time that I was writing Net Work, but we didn’t meet until a few years after that. They have both continued to contribute to understanding how the intentional creation, weaving, and nurture of networks supports social change. Their clients and colleagues touch many of the influential foundations in this country.

Not long ago, Madeleine and her colleagues at Network Impact, published a Network Evaluation Guide. This (free) handbook is a great resource for people who are looking at network building as part of a social change strategy and want to be able to put measurement frameworks in place so that they will understand the impact of the network building on their work. This has terrific stuff in it, and I apologize for not writing about it sooner.

And this week (DrumRoll, please) Peter and Madeleine and their colleague John Cleveland have just published a shiny new book, Connecting to Change the World: Harnessing the Power of Networks for Social Impact. (More information is available on the Island Press website, where there is a 50% discount until September 30, so better get it this weekend.

Share

Archive

July 18, 2013 by Patti

Intentional Networking à la Engelbart

Doug Engelbart passed away last week, and there have been modest acknowledgments about his passing, and his accomplishments, among which, of course his most famous — the invention of the computer mouse. (The Economist had a nice obituary, too.)

The mouse was an element of Doug’s vision for how humans and computers could co-evolve to increase the intellectual potential of individuals and groups. Being able to interact with the computer and with others through the computer and becoming more adept at doing it was merely a hardware element.

I became familiar with the vision and much, much more, when I attended one of Doug’s Bootstrap Institute’s 3-day seminars at Stanford in March, 1991. Three days with Doug Engelbart did, I am sure, change many more lives than mine. He introduced a full new way of thinking about work in organizations and used language that today could fit into any knowledge management treatise, for example:

Giving knowledge workers new capabilities for coordinating their work concurrently, with instant access to the correct document, and all the supporting intelligence and dialog trails which led to key decisions, could dramatically reduce product-cycle time and improve first-time quality, boosting an organization’s capacity and momentum. (This text is from my hardcopy dated 11/5/90. Updated version is available on the Douglas Engelbart website.)

His approach for enhancing organizational effectiveness was the A-B-C model, in which the core business work is the (A) activity, and (B) activities were those in service of improving (A) through training, implementing new processes, introducing new tools, and the like. The third level, (C) activities, were those activities focused on getting better at learning, researching, finding, and figuring how to acquire and share the knowledge necessary for improving (B) so as to enhance (A).

He believed that (C) activities were in the main non-proprietary and could and should therefore be work that could be a collaboration across businesses and industries. He attracted many people to the Bootstrap Institute (which has since been renamed the Doug Engelbart Institute) to work together to create this (C) community. And because so much of his vision was tied to the use of computing infrastructure, he sought the support and attendance by many in the computer industry. I was invited to attend because there were several senior people in Digital Equipment at the time who were interested in participating in the effort.

Three intense days included time in Doug’s education lab (the first time I had ever participated in a training session in which all participants had computer screens to view and follow along the instructor’s screen), lots of “foils” (as they were called in that day, no screen display of powerpoint yet!) that expanded on the various elements of Doug’s theory of augmentation and the different cultural, organizational, and systemic ramifications… and lots of interesting people. Below is our group photo. Over 14 different computer hardware and/or software companies represented.

Bootstrap Seminar March 1991

(That’s me in the red shawl. Doug is 2 heads above me.)

Not much really happened with the Bootstrap Initiative as, like most of Doug’s work, he was ahead of his time and probably not a great salesmen nor business thinker. For human augmentation to really work well, computers needed to be interoperable — information from one computer system had to be accessible from any other — but  we were some (not a whole lot, but enough) years away from the environment we live in now with rapid publishing to the web, almost universal sharing through HTML and document publishing standards. All of which made knowledge management possible.

The Bootstrap seminar was one of the first formal intentional network building events I ever attended. Doug was very clear about how important it was for us to get to know each other and that the development of these relationships would make or break the Bootstrap endeavor. At each break, he instructed us to “talk with someone you don’t know or haven’t met yet!”  Not much came of the network, either, but that was possibly also because we didn’t yet quite have the technology for all these people in all these companies to have communications tools so we could communicate in a style that was comfortable for each of us. (Or, the purpose of the network wasn’t sufficiently articulated; or, there wasn’t enough structure for the network to collaborate; or we weren’t sure what the value of this network would be to each of our respective companies. Wish I’d known more back then.)
RIP, Doug Engelbart, and thanks for the gift of many concepts and a language that I believe has served me well.

Share

Archive

January 8, 2013 by Patti

Networks and NonProfits

I’ve had the good fortune over the past two years to see my work shift into the nonprofit space. I miss some of my corporate clients, but it has been both a rewarding and a good learning experience to participate in this other world. I’m getting ready to do a webinar [link updated 4/2 to take you to the full replay] on the 14th of January for the Leadership Learning Community. It’s titled Network Analysis (SNA/ONA) Methods for Assessment & Measurement. It’s the result of some thinking and working with June Holley and Claire Reinelt on the various things I’ve seen in the nonprofit world. June and Claire will also be sharing case studies on the webinar.

Part of what’s been interesting over the past years (as I was working on Net Work and thereafter) is the pick-up of interest in all things networks and nonprofits. I use this graphic in my workshops as a way to get people to talk about what they have (or might) read:

nonprofit reading

This is certainly not exhaustive, but it’s a pretty good list. So I have published this list (with hyperlinks) as Net Work’s NonProfit Reading List.

Two recent additions to the list (one made it into the graphic, the other not yet):

The LLC’s recent publication, Leadership & Networks (October 2012) by Claire Reinelt and Deborah Meehan. I am a contributing co-author on this paper, along with some great collaborators. The report is intended for “those who run and fund leadership programs that develop and support leadership for social change.” It highlights the importance of, and ways that, leaders in social change should be more network-aware and ways that programs can bring network literacy into their work.

I’ve also added an as-yet unpublished paper developed by Heather Creech and colleagues for IISD (especial thanks to co-author Michelle Laurie, for sharing this). I’ve been a fan of Heather’s for some time as she has been working in the development world for many years offering insights into how networks can support sustainable development. This new publication, Performance improvement and assessment of collaboration: starting points for networks and communities of practice provides a very good breakdown of types of communities of practice and suggestions for ways to measure value created by each.

Which brings me back to the topic of the webinar: it is important to understand not just how network analysis can support nonprofits in designing and assessing networks and measuring the impact of the network, but also to understand the limitations. It’s a topic of active inquiry for me — having been so immersed in SNA/ONA for so long, I am finding that it is important to be able to understand how network maps and metrics can be indicators of outcome. That’s the new net work.

Share

Archive

April 18, 2012 by Patti

New ONA Resources

This past week brought a few nodes in the interconnected map of resources (articles, papers, blogs) related to organizational network analysis (ONA).

Maya Townsend (@mayapar), Partnering Resources, has begun to blog on Change, Talent, Strategy, and Collaboration. Two of her first posts reveal how intimately she combines her expertise in ONA with her organizational development and strategic consulting expertise. One, The Most Important Positions in Your Company, provides a nice summary of three key roles in networks: hubs, gatekeepers, and pulse takers. The post links to a short white paper that expand on the topic. If you are interested in networks and organizational development, you’ll find a number of gems on Maya’s site, as she is very generous with her tools, exercises, and cases. (She was a great partner to me in a NetWorkShop I conducted for the Boston Facilitator’s Roundtable last December.)

Meanwhile, over at Activate Networks‘ blog (written by Steve Wardell) references a good article from People and Strategy last year on organizational network analysis. Authors Dan Novak, Mark Rennaker, and Paulette Turner set the stage nicely for talking about the need for ONA as follows:

Using structure to articulate the intent of an organization creates a challenge for leaders because it creates a perception of stability…However in knowledge intensive organizations, people and information need to be brought together in adaptable and flexible ways.

They present five brief case studies focused on culture change in silo’d organizations. In the concluding case study, the COO offered after-action insights, including this echo of the above:

Leaders may expect a neat and clean [organizational] design, but complex, networked realities may appear messy.

I always like a good ONA read. Keeps the juices flowing. Other flows in progress:

  • My Optimice colleagues Cai Kjaer, Laurie Lock Lee and I have just completed module 2 of 3 in our first running of the ONA Online Practitioner Course. We complete Module 3 next week when Marc Smith takes the student cohort into NodeXL territory. It’s not too late to sign up for the U.S. course that runs April 25 - May 22, with the interactive sessions May 8, May 15, and May 22.

And just to boggle my brain a bit, I’m attending the Collective Intelligence symposium at M.I.T. tomorrow and Friday. I hope to tweet from there (my twittering is a bit rusty, but I can still count to 140.)

Share
← Older posts