Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ona-prac] Framing a question about extent of internal vs. external relationships

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Ward
    Patti, what has always worked for me (though in a more classic consulting context rather than specifically in netowrk surveys) has been quantifying for
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 8, 2007
      Patti, what has always worked for me (though in a more classic consulting context rather than specifically in netowrk surveys) has been quantifying for respondents in a more accessible/meaningful way the level of activity/engagement that you regard as indicative of each level you are interested in - % are such an abstract concept.  In the context you describe this might be something like,
       
      "On a typical day, how many times on average, do you have significant conversations/discussions with people outside your own group?"
       
      A.  0 times
      B.  1 - 3 times
      C.  More than 3 times
       
      People can relate to this kind of "real" question and if you can pick the right time interval (day, week, month - the shorter the better) and group the frequencies in ways that test your hypotheses, then it works well and is easy to answer.
       
      Hope this helps.  Good luck
       
      --
      Andrew Ward
      London, UK
      m: +44 7880 740-321
      e: andrew@...

       
      On 1/7/07, pattianklam <patti@...> wrote:


      This may be a bit of an extension on the question of personal networks within group networks, but here I'm looking for specific advice about how to frame a survey question.

      The survey respondents themselves are all in the same organization, but I want to understand how much time people actually spend interacting with people outside their own groups. I have tried the following, with limited success:

      (Q)Of the time that you spend interacting with others, please indicate the relative percentage of your time you spend interacting with each of the following:

      GroupChoices
      Other group A: 
      Other group B:
      Other group C:
      Outside company, with customers:
      Outside company, with research labs:

      where choices are percentage ranges, i.e. None   <10%,   10-30%,   30%-50%,   50%-75%,   75-80%,nbsp;  and 80-100%   I'm now trying to pick something less quantitative, with Lickert scale choices like: Not at all To a little extent Somewhat, etc. Anyone have any experiences with a question like this? thanks patti




    • Valdis Krebs
      I agree with Andrew -- the more specific, the less abstract, the better. That is why the default link strengths in InFlow are... 1. yearly or less 2.
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 8, 2007
        I agree with Andrew -- the more specific, the less abstract, the
        better. That is why the default link strengths in InFlow are...

        1. yearly or less
        2. quarterly
        3. monthly
        4. weekly
        5. daily or more

        Everyone -- all over the world -- understand these concepts, and the
        time periods are distinct enough to where people do not get confused
        on what belongs in one or the other. This scale can easily be
        converted to hard numbers using either calendar days or work/business
        days.

        Valdis


        On Jan 8, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Andrew Ward wrote:

        > Patti, what has always worked for me (though in a more classic
        > consulting context rather than specifically in netowrk surveys) has
        > been quantifying for respondents in a more accessible/meaningful
        > way the level of activity/engagement that you regard as indicative
        > of each level you are interested in - % are such an abstract
        > concept. In the context you describe this might be something like,
        >
        > "On a typical day, how many times on average, do you have
        > significant conversations/discussions with people outside your own
        > group?"
        >
        > A. 0 times
        > B. 1 - 3 times
        > C. More than 3 times
        >
        > People can relate to this kind of "real" question and if you can
        > pick the right time interval (day, week, month - the shorter the
        > better) and group the frequencies in ways that test your
        > hypotheses, then it works well and is easy to answer.
      • Cai Kjaer
        Hi Patti, I recently did a project where we looked at the flow of ideas within a group in a large health organisation. This particular group of about 100
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 9, 2007

          Hi Patti,
           
          I recently did a project where we looked at the flow of ideas within a group in a large health organisation. This particular group of about 100 people are tasked with identifying and implementing 'best practice' across the entire organisation (around 130,000 staff in total).
           
          One of the questions we asked was "How important is each of the following in helping you generating new ideas or identifying best practices [relevant to what we were examining]?" and I am attaching a jpeg so you can see the options we provided and the answers.
           
          Not surprisingly (but still a very powerful message...) they scored the importance of 'local' people relatively higher than 'external' people. What surprised me was that they then scored exactly the opposite for information sources where external sources were considered relatively more important than the internal sources.
           
          The root course for this I believe (however, didn't get a chance to prove it, so it is just my gut feel) is that identifying local people is easier than identifying external people. Add of course to this that many people feel more comfortable going to people they already know for advice and ideas. On the information side, I reckon they go to external resources because it was actually easier  for them to find (through Google etc) the external sources of information rather than finding anything on the countless corporate network-drives which had no obvious structures or information management applied to them or the poorly maintained intranet-sites. When I asked them if this (phrased in a slightly more diplomatical fashion...) might be the case there was a lot of nodding, but that is not exactly valid as evidence...
           
          The group's view on this would be interesting.
           

          Kind regards

          Cai

          ________________________
          Cai Kjaer, Partner
          Optimice
          Phone: +61 411 569 694
          Email: cai.kjaer@...
          Web: www.optimice.com.au
        • Diana Jones
          Hi Patti, dpending on what you are trying to discover, one way you might consider approaching this survye would be to invite respondents to rank the groups in
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 18, 2007
            Message
            Hi Patti, dpending on what you are trying to discover, one way you might consider approaching this survye would be to invite respondents to rank the groups in order of their importance to the respondent in assisting them doing their job well.  
             
            I have found time together sometime indicates importance of a relationship and many other times not. It often depends on the purpose of the relationship: information sharing, problem solving, opinion leaders, advice, trust, formal reporting, etc.
             
            I am currently working with a group assisting them look at their stakeholder relationships, and we are considering looking at inter group connections first, and we are rating the relationship as it currently is: 1 = working well, 2 = OK, 3 = needs development,
             
            and down the track we will map ego networks, so we have a map of the network of each individual within the broad range of possibilities of the stakeholder groups. This is a performance monitoring group as part of a public sector funding agency.
             
            This group is using the maps to look at the work they now need to undertake in developing relationships and changing the culture of the reporting relationship.
             
            another option is to take a future perspective and ask, for xyz to occur (e.g. greater collaboration across business units and with clients), who are three people you now need to develop a relationship with. this intervention stimulate new patterns and it is only sometimes relevant to produce maps. Hope some of this is helpful,
             
            regards, Diana Jones
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: pattianklam [mailto:patti@...]
            Sent: 8 January 2007 8:52 a.m.
            To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [ona-prac] Framing a question about extent of internal vs. external relationships


            This may be a bit of an extension on the question of personal networks within group networks, but here I'm looking for specific advice about how to frame a survey question.

            The survey respondents themselves are all in the same organization, but I want to understand how much time people actually spend interacting with people outside their own groups. I have tried the following, with limited success:

            (Q)Of the time that you spend interacting with others, please indicate the relative percentage of your time you spend interacting with each of the following:

            Group
            Choices
            Other group A: 
            Other group B:
            Other group C:
            Outside company, with customers:
            Outside company, with research labs:

            where choices are percentage ranges, i.e. None   <10%,   10-30%,   30%-50%,   50%-75%,   75-80%,nbsp;  and 80-100%   I'm now trying to pick something less quantitative, with Lickert scale choices like: Not at all To a little extent Somewhat, etc. Anyone have any experiences with a question like this? thanks patti

          • Patti Anklam
            Diana, These are very good suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to write this up, I think it s helpful for all the practitioners out here. Best, patti
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 26, 2007

              Diana,

               

              These are very good suggestions.  Thanks for taking the time to write this up, I think it’s helpful for all the practitioners out here.

               

              Best,

               

              patti

               


              From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Diana Jones
              Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:06 PM
              To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [ona-prac] Framing a question about extent of internal vs. external relationships

               

              Hi Patti, dpending on what you are trying to discover, one way you might consider approaching this survye would be to invite respondents to rank the groups in order of their importance to the respondent in assisting them doing their job well.  

               

              I have found time together sometime indicates importance of a relationship and many other times not. It often depends on the purpose of the relationship: information sharing, problem solving, opinion leaders, advice, trust, formal reporting, etc.

               

              I am currently working with a group assisting them look at their stakeholder relationships, and we are considering looking at inter group connections first, and we are rating the relationship as it currently is: 1 = working well, 2 = OK, 3 = needs development,

               

              and down the track we will map ego networks, so we have a map of the network of each individual within the broad range of possibilities of the stakeholder groups. This is a performance monitoring group as part of a public sector funding agency.

               

              This group is using the maps to look at the work they now need to undertake in developing relationships and changing the culture of the reporting relationship.

               

              another option is to take a future perspective and ask, for xyz to occur (e.g. greater collaboration across business units and with clients), who are three people you now need to develop a relationship with. this intervention stimulate new patterns and it is only sometimes relevant to produce maps. Hope some of this is helpful,

               

              regards, Diana Jones

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: pattianklam [mailto:patti@ byeday.net]
              Sent: 8 January 2007 8:52 a.m.
              To: ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com
              Subject: [ona-prac] Framing a question about extent of internal vs. external relationships


              This may be a bit of an extension on the question of personal networks within group networks, but here I'm looking for specific advice about how to frame a survey question.

              The survey respondents themselves are all in the same organization, but I want to understand how much time people actually spend interacting with people outside their own groups. I have tried the following, with limited success:

              (Q)Of the time that you spend interacting with others, please indicate the relative percentage of your time you spend interacting with each of the following:

              Group

              Choices

              Other group A: 

               

              Other group B:

               

              Other group C:

               

              Outside company, with customers:

               

              Outside company, with research labs:

               

              where choices are percentage ranges, i.e. None   <10%,   10-30%,   30%-50%,   50%-75%,   75-80%,nbsp;  and 80-100%   I'm now trying to pick something less quantitative, with Lickert scale choices like: Not at all To a little extent Somewhat, etc. Anyone have any experiences with a question like this? thanks patti

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.