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

RE: [ona-prac] Re: Large analysis

Expand Messages
  • Peter Biddle
    There are email tools which can help answer at least some of Valdis questions. They aren t so automated yet that you can just press one magic button and get
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      There are email tools which can help answer at least some of Valdis' questions. They aren't so automated yet that you can just press one magic button and get all the answers, but that is the direction folks seem to be headed.
       
      What I think you want is an email analysis tool which can tell you:
      Who emails whom?
      How often do they communicate?
      Is the communication one-sided or evenly distributed?
      What are people mostly talking about?
      Who communicates in those areas (so focus on topics in addition to people)?
      Where do new ideas tend to originate?
      Where do new ideas tend to migrate to?
      ...
       
      Combining email with a survey seems like a great solution. Start with email (and eventually IM, phone logs, chats, wikis, blogs) for everyone in a given network. With an appropriate opt-in privacy system, of course.
       
      Then use a rough analysis of that data to identify key facets of the org - pivotal people (e.g. brokers) as well as those who have somehow wound up isolated or displaced (eg orphaned individuals or groups). We could then use the resulting data to target the recipients of a survey as well as to tune the questions themselves. Once the survey is answered, we could apply our learnings from that back to the email analysis to see where our assumptions held out and where they need to be adjusted.
       
      Presumably some recommendations will come out of all this analysis, and hopefully the company undertakes changes. Ongoing email analysis can help mgmt see if the changes they choose to take are shifting communication flows and improving things, allowing them to tune changes in-situ.
       
      There are companies out there which provide tools to do automated analysis of email. I happen to run the dev team for one of them so I won't mention any company here as it may be perceived as marketing. But if you are interested, look around!
       
      Peter
      +++
       
       

       

      To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
      From: valdis@...
      Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:25:23 -0400
      Subject: Re: [ona-prac] Re: Large analysis

      Yeah, proxies are fine if they help answer your question. But often
      management wants to know specific things and therefore ask specific
      questions. Proxies can be use their as a "reality test" but are
      insufficient on their own.

      A specific proxy can be defined as in this project.

      http://www.orgnet. com/email. html

      We looked at emails just for particular project members, allowing us
      to get a pretty good proxy for "overall project communication" . Yet,
      we did not know who was talking tech, who was talking admin, who was
      talking process, who was coming up with ideas, or who the experts were.

      There is no free lunch nor simple swaps in SNA/ONA.

      Valdis

      On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:40 PM, jkbuenen wrote:

      > Valdis, Giancarlo,
      >
      > I know I probably butt in far to early being a freshman on this group
      >
      > How about using the companies computer mediated communication (cmc)
      > data as a
      > proxy?
      > Our limited experience, and some scientific work, shows that there
      > is a good chance cmc
      > can be taken as a proxy. Off course you always have the possibility
      > of doing a limited
      > survey based analysis to validate the proxy for this particular case.
      > We also accept working as sub-contractors in this field.
      >
      > Our software allows a dynamic picture with role developments showing
      > over time.
      >
      > Appreciate your feedback
      >
      > Kind regards,
      > Jan-Kees
      > www.centerconsult. net
      >
      >
      >>
      >
      > --- In ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com, Valdis Krebs <valdis@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> Giancarlo,
      >>
      >> You CAN do a roster survey of 400... divide them up by department/
      >> location and then alphabetically within the dept. We have done this
      >> and it works OK... allowing people to quickly find those natural
      >> groups/locations they interact with. IBM has done populations of
      >> 600-700 using this method.
      >>
      >> Your response rate will determine which metrics will make sense for
      >> you... don't choose flow betweenness, or anything else, before you
      >> have a ready data set! Also, are you asking symmetric or asymmetric
      >> questions?
      >>
      >> Valdis
      >>
      >>
      >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Giancarlo Oriani wrote:
      >>
      >>> Dear friends,
      >>> a large companies is about to analyse its information flows in order
      >>> to identify the informal information brokers. The company include
      >>> some 400 persons. A roster technique approach is clearly impossible.
      >>> I would suggest them a free recall appoach, asking each respondents
      >>> to select 30 actors and to evaluate then their links to the 30. Then
      >>> I will calculate the flow betweenness, even if I know the results
      >>> won't be perfect.
      >>> Do you know a better method?
      >>> Thank you so much
      >>> Giancarlo
      >>>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >


    • Michael Brown
      Hi Peter If you add DPI (deep packet inspection) to the email content you can conduct some very interesing job related social and ego net analysis. We are
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 26, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Peter
        If you add DPI (deep packet inspection) to the email content you can conduct some very interesing job related social and ego net analysis. We are using email, wiki, web and application activity to assess digitial activity contributions to Key Performance Indicators and Social Network Analysis.
        mb
         
        Michael L. Brown, Founder & CEO
        SkillsNET Enterprises
        3295 North Hwy 77
        Waxahachie, Texas 75165

         

        Vice Chair IEEE LTSC Competency Standards

        O-972-923-2950
        c-972-987-4599


        SkillObjects: The OBJECT of work analysis


        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Peter Biddle <peternbiddle@...>
        To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:57:22 AM
        Subject: RE: [ona-prac] Re: Large analysis

        There are email tools which can help answer at least some of Valdis' questions. They aren't so automated yet that you can just press one magic button and get all the answers, but that is the direction folks seem to be headed.
         
        What I think you want is an email analysis tool which can tell you:
        Who emails whom?
        How often do they communicate?
        Is the communication one-sided or evenly distributed?
        What are people mostly talking about?
        Who communicates in those areas (so focus on topics in addition to people)?
        Where do new ideas tend to originate?
        Where do new ideas tend to migrate to?
        ...
         
        Combining email with a survey seems like a great solution. Start with email (and eventually IM, phone logs, chats, wikis, blogs) for everyone in a given network. With an appropriate opt-in privacy system, of course.
         
        Then use a rough analysis of that data to identify key facets of the org - pivotal people (e.g. brokers) as well as those who have somehow wound up isolated or displaced (eg orphaned individuals or groups). We could then use the resulting data to target the recipients of a survey as well as to tune the questions themselves. Once the survey is answered, we could apply our learnings from that back to the email analysis to see where our assumptions held out and where they need to be adjusted.
         
        Presumably some recommendations will come out of all this analysis, and hopefully the company undertakes changes. Ongoing email analysis can help mgmt see if the changes they choose to take are shifting communication flows and improving things, allowing them to tune changes in-situ.
         
        There are companies out there which provide tools to do automated analysis of email. I happen to run the dev team for one of them so I won't mention any company here as it may be perceived as marketing. But if you are interested, look around!
         
        Peter
        +++
         
         

         


        To: ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com
        From: valdis@orgnet. com
        Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:25:23 -0400
        Subject: Re: [ona-prac] Re: Large analysis

        Yeah, proxies are fine if they help answer your question. But often
        management wants to know specific things and therefore ask specific
        questions. Proxies can be use their as a "reality test" but are
        insufficient on their own.

        A specific proxy can be defined as in this project.

        http://www.orgnet. com/email. html

        We looked at emails just for particular project members, allowing us
        to get a pretty good proxy for "overall project communication" . Yet,
        we did not know who was talking tech, who was talking admin, who was
        talking process, who was coming up with ideas, or who the experts were.

        There is no free lunch nor simple swaps in SNA/ONA.

        Valdis

        On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:40 PM, jkbuenen wrote:

        > Valdis, Giancarlo,
        >
        > I know I probably butt in far to early being a freshman on this group
        >
        > How about using the companies computer mediated communication (cmc)
        > data as a
        > proxy?
        > Our limited experience, and some scientific work, shows that there
        > is a good chance cmc
        > can be taken as a proxy. Off course you always have the possibility
        > of doing a limited
        > survey based analysis to validate the proxy for this particular case.
        > We also accept working as sub-contractors in this field.
        >
        > Our software allows a dynamic picture with role developments showing
        > over time.
        >
        > Appreciate your feedback
        >
        > Kind regards,
        > Jan-Kees
        > www.centerconsult. net
        >
        >
        >>
        >
        > --- In ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com, Valdis Krebs <valdis@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> Giancarlo,
        >>
        >> You CAN do a roster survey of 400... divide them up by department/
        >> location and then alphabetically within the dept. We have done this
        >> and it works OK... allowing people to quickly find those natural
        >> groups/locations they interact with. IBM has done populations of
        >> 600-700 using this method.
        >>
        >> Your response rate will determine which metrics will make sense for
        >> you... don't choose flow betweenness, or anything else, before you
        >> have a ready data set! Also, are you asking symmetric or asymmetric
        >> questions?
        >>
        >> Valdis
        >>
        >>
        >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Giancarlo Oriani wrote:
        >>
        >>> Dear friends,
        >>> a large companies is about to analyse its information flows in order
        >>> to identify the informal information brokers. The company include
        >>> some 400 persons. A roster technique approach is clearly impossible.
        >>> I would suggest them a free recall appoach, asking each respondents
        >>> to select 30 actors and to evaluate then their links to the 30. Then
        >>> I will calculate the flow betweenness, even if I know the results
        >>> won't be perfect.
        >>> Do you know a better method?
        >>> Thank you so much
        >>> Giancarlo
        >>>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------ --------- --------- ------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >


      • Giancarlo Oriani
        Thank you very much for your suggestions. I will probably ask both symmetric (whom are exchanging information about ...) and asymmetric (whom do you go to to
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 27, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you very much for your suggestions.
          I will probably ask both symmetric (whom are exchanging information about ...) and asymmetric (whom do you go to to get advice...)
          Giancarlo
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:12 AM
          Subject: [!! SPAM] Re: [ona-prac] Large analysis

          Giancarlo,

          You CAN do a roster survey of 400... divide them up by department/
          location and then alphabetically within the dept. We have done this
          and it works OK... allowing people to quickly find those natural
          groups/locations they interact with. IBM has done populations of
          600-700 using this method.

          Your response rate will determine which metrics will make sense for
          you... don't choose flow betweenness, or anything else, before you
          have a ready data set! Also, are you asking symmetric or asymmetric
          questions?

          Valdis

          On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Giancarlo Oriani wrote:

          > Dear friends,
          > a large companies is about to analyse its information flows in order
          > to identify the informal information brokers. The company include
          > some 400 persons. A roster technique approach is clearly impossible.
          > I would suggest them a free recall appoach, asking each respondents
          > to select 30 actors and to evaluate then their links to the 30. Then
          > I will calculate the flow betweenness, even if I know the results
          > won't be perfect.
          > Do you know a better method?
          > Thank you so much
          > Giancarlo
          >

        • caikjaer
          Hi all, Did you know about the plugin for Excel which can analyse your own emails? http://cid-ae935b3cde8015dd.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Excel%
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 28, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi all,

            Did you know about the plugin for Excel which can analyse your own
            emails?

            http://cid-ae935b3cde8015dd.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Excel%
            20.NetMap%20-%20Social%20Network%20Add-in%20for%20Excel%202007

            I have just installed it. You need Microsoft Desktop Search for it
            work, but after my laptop had indexed Outlook it produced a nice map.
            Still not sure what to make of it though, but at least sign that
            mapping is becoming much more mainstream. I found out about it from
            the "Complexity and Social Networks Blog of the Institute for
            Quantitative Social Science and the Program on Networked Governance,
            Harvard University" (I wouldn't want to come up with an acronym for
            that...).

            On a quite separate note - but quite fascinating - UK newspaper The
            Telegraph has available online SNA maps on interactions between
            soccer players (ball passing) - see
            http://telegraph.jumpmediagroup.com/PlayerStat.aspx?
            p1id=5127&p2id=3789

            You need to select a player and a match and then scroll to the bottom
            of the page. Click on 'Pass./Rec' and you get an ONA/SNA map of the
            entire match.


            Rgs

            Cai Kjaer
            Partner, Optimice Pty Ltd
            www.optimice.com.au / www.onasurveys.com

            --- In ona-prac@yahoogroups.com, Peter Biddle <peternbiddle@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > There are email tools which can help answer at least some of
            Valdis' questions. They aren't so automated yet that you can just
            press one magic button and get all the answers, but that is the
            direction folks seem to be headed.
            >
            > What I think you want is an email analysis tool which can tell you:
            > Who emails whom?
            > How often do they communicate?
            > Is the communication one-sided or evenly distributed?
            > What are people mostly talking about?
            > Who communicates in those areas (so focus on topics in addition to
            people)?
            > Where do new ideas tend to originate?
            > Where do new ideas tend to migrate to?
            > ...
            >
            > Combining email with a survey seems like a great solution. Start
            with email (and eventually IM, phone logs, chats, wikis, blogs) for
            everyone in a given network. With an appropriate opt-in privacy
            system, of course.
            >
            > Then use a rough analysis of that data to identify key facets of
            the org - pivotal people (e.g. brokers) as well as those who have
            somehow wound up isolated or displaced (eg orphaned individuals or
            groups). We could then use the resulting data to target the
            recipients of a survey as well as to tune the questions themselves.
            Once the survey is answered, we could apply our learnings from that
            back to the email analysis to see where our assumptions held out and
            where they need to be adjusted.
            >
            > Presumably some recommendations will come out of all this analysis,
            and hopefully the company undertakes changes. Ongoing email analysis
            can help mgmt see if the changes they choose to take are shifting
            communication flows and improving things, allowing them to tune
            changes in-situ.
            >
            > There are companies out there which provide tools to do automated
            analysis of email. I happen to run the dev team for one of them so I
            won't mention any company here as it may be perceived as marketing.
            But if you are interested, look around!
            >
            > Peter
            > +++
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > To: ona-prac@...: valdis@...: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:25:23 -
            0400Subject: Re: [ona-prac] Re: Large analysis
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yeah, proxies are fine if they help answer your question. But often
            management wants to know specific things and therefore ask specific
            questions. Proxies can be use their as a "reality test" but are
            insufficient on their own.A specific proxy can be defined as in this
            project.http://www.orgnet.com/email.htmlWe looked at emails just for
            particular project members, allowing us to get a pretty good proxy
            for "overall project communication". Yet, we did not know who was
            talking tech, who was talking admin, who was talking process, who was
            coming up with ideas, or who the experts were.There is no free lunch
            nor simple swaps in SNA/ONA.ValdisOn Jun 25, 2008, at 6:40 PM,
            jkbuenen wrote:> Valdis, Giancarlo,>> I know I probably butt in far
            to early being a freshman on this group>> How about using the
            companies computer mediated communication (cmc) > data as a> proxy?>
            Our limited experience, and some scientific work, shows that there >
            is a good chance cmc> can be taken as a proxy. Off course you always
            have the possibility > of doing a limited> survey based analysis to
            validate the proxy for this particular case.> We also accept working
            as sub-contractors in this field.>> Our software allows a dynamic
            picture with role developments showing > over time.>> Appreciate your
            feedback>> Kind regards,> Jan-Kees> www.centerconsult.net>>>>>> ---
            In ona-prac@yahoogroups.com, Valdis Krebs <valdis@> wrote:>>>>
            Giancarlo,>>>> You CAN do a roster survey of 400... divide them up by
            department/>> location and then alphabetically within the dept. We
            have done this>> and it works OK... allowing people to quickly find
            those natural>> groups/locations they interact with. IBM has done
            populations of>> 600-700 using this method.>>>> Your response rate
            will determine which metrics will make sense for>> you... don't
            choose flow betweenness, or anything else, before you>> have a ready
            data set! Also, are you asking symmetric or asymmetric>> questions?
            >>>> Valdis>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Giancarlo Oriani
            wrote:>>>>> Dear friends,>>> a large companies is about to analyse
            its information flows in order>>> to identify the informal
            information brokers. The company include>>> some 400 persons. A
            roster technique approach is clearly impossible.>>> I would suggest
            them a free recall appoach, asking each respondents>>> to select 30
            actors and to evaluate then their links to the 30. Then>>> I will
            calculate the flow betweenness, even if I know the results>>> won't
            be perfect.>>> Do you know a better method?>>> Thank you so much>>>
            Giancarlo>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------>> Yahoo!
            Groups Links>>>
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.