Knowledge management Social capital and social network

Seeking Knowledge / advice

Discuss Class Materials

Social network analysis “the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organization, computers or other information/knowledge processing entities”

Collective knowledge The accumulated knowledge of the organization stored in its rules, procedures, routines and shared norms which guide the problem-solving activities and patterns of interaction among its members. From neuron to network

Organizing principles Hierarchy – Formal, top-down, a priori, mechanical Network – Informal, bottom-up, ad hoc, organic

The enumerated list under Religion in DDC 200 Religion 210 Natural theology 220 Bible 230 Christian theology 240 Christian moral & devotional theology 250 Christian orders & local church 260 Christian social theology 270 Christian church history 280 Christian denominations & sects 290 Other & comparative religions 221 Old Testament 222 Historical books of Old Testament 223 Poetic books of Old Testament 224 Prophetic books of Old Testament 225 New Testament 226 Gospels & Acts 227 Epistles 228 Revelation (Apocalypse) 229 Apocrypha & pseudepigrapha MeSH browser Similarity thesaurus

The hierarchical view of the Internet

Network and information flow “The well-structure network can act as a screening device in the face of information overload, include others who can be bought into an opportunity, and deliver information early, providing the opportunity to act on the information before it is widespread or obsolete.”

Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. – Samuel Johnson

Why bother with networks? Networks reflect the patterns of interaction that make up the social world. They generate both opportunities and constraints for action for those within them: e.g. via resource flows, social capital (in its various forms), interdependence (and the balances of power it creates) etc. informal exchange of knowledge

Complementary views on knowledge sharing Knowledge “market” – Cost and benefit analysis (social, economic, political…) – Reward system Social capital/organizational culture – Society can’t be reduced to mere market transactions – Norms, culture, identity, and social relations

Social capital “features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1993).”

Huysman, M. (2004). Design requirements for knowledge-sharing tools: a need for social capital analysis Conditions for knowledge sharing

Networked view of social capital Social capital consists of the stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behavior that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible…

Two kinds of capital “Robert has more social capital”, is it true? – “Bonding capital” and “Bridging capital”

Structural advantages 1. Wide diversity – Less redundant information 2. Early access – Seeing opportunities for innovation 3. Control over diffusion

Closure vs. Structural Holes James Coleman: High trust in a community with full closure networks (“strong component”) and strong ties fosters mutual assistance obligations and the social control of deviant behaviors (e.g., disciplining children who misbehave in public) Ronald Burt: Ego gains numerous competitive advantages and higher investment returns if ego’s weak, direct-tie relations span structural holes, thus serving as bridge between its alters

Amplifier for creativity “Experience from many domains suggest that innovations often arise from the unexpected synthesis of multiple ideas, each of them on their own perhaps well-known, but well-known in distinct and unrelated bodies of expertise.”

Serendipity Accidental discoveries – Taste, asthma, lung A propensity for making fortunate discoveries while looking for something unrelated The “sagacity” of being able to link together apparently innocuous information to come to a valuable conclusion

Brokerage

Structural holes if you link to two people who are not linked you can control their communication Three actor network with a structural hole

Boundary spanners

Connecting heterogeneous knowledge Boundary spanners – who take care of one specific boundary exampleexample Roamers – going from place to place, creating an information web of connections Outposts – bringing back news from the front and exploring new territories

Brokerage Brokerage relations: connections between disorganized others Measured by “betweenness”

Network “redundancy”

Structural Holes from Ego’s Viewpoint SOURCE: Knoke (2001:237) To gain information and control benefits from structural holes, players must identify bridging / brokering opportunities and fill in those gaps

Structural holes “given greater homogeneity within than between groups, people whose networks bridge the structural holes between groups have earlier access to a broader diversity of information and have experience in translating information across groups. P.354”

Structural equivalence Identify actors with similar roles Measures of similarity – How similar each actor’s ties are to all other actors – Two actors may be said to be structurally equivalent to each other if they have the same patterns of ties with other actors.

Information/contact redundancy Group cohesion (Fig. 1.2) Structural equivalence The use of “electricity” metaphor and when it fails “Looking for the structural holes in a network is a kind of perceptual test”

Network constraints Constraints: the extent to which an actor’s connections to other are also connected to one another – E.g. A is constrained by its relationship with B to the extent that A does not have many alternatives (has few other ties except that to B), and A’s other alternatives are also tied to B.

Echoing Coleman, Burt argues that social closure provides a key resource for building trust and amplifying reputation © 2004 Ronald Burt. Brokerage and Closure, Cambridge University Press 2005.

Strong ties, weak ties Strong ties represent willingness to share information, but those to whom we are weakly tied may have access to more valuable and diverse information due to their connections in different networks

Granovetter 1973 Interviewed MBA graduates and asked: “How did you find your job?” – Kept getting the same answer: “through an acquaintance or “friend’s friend”, not a friend” Implications – Weak ties are surprisingly valuable because they are more likely to lean novel information and ideas

Strength of a tie and influence M. S. Granovetter: The Strength of Weak Ties, AJS, 1973: finding a job through a contact that one saw – frequently (2+ times/week) 16.7% – occasionally (more than once a year but < 2x week) 55.6% – rarely 27.8% but… length of path is short – contact directly works for/is the employer – or is connected directly to employer

Granovetter’s theory of weak tie Strong ties are embedded in high homophilous clusters Weak ties connect to diversity Weak ties a source of novel information Adopted from Borgatti, 2004

Tie strength and knowledge sharing

Network obstacles to innovation Fragmentation – Collaboration often breaks down across functional lines, technical capabilities, and occupational subcultures in ways that invisibly undermine strategic innovation efforts. Domination – The voices of a few central network members, who often have expertise good for times gone by, can drown out novel ideas and drive innovation efforts along traditional trajectories long after the market has veered in another direction. Insularity – The inability to recognize and leverage relevant external expertise can yield excessive cost structures and delays that results in missed market opportunities.