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

Correlation between info sorces and info brokers

Expand Messages
  • pstepka77
    Dear All, I am looking for some information and materials on the correlation between being main info source in the network (based on high indegree) and main
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 1 2:04 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,

      I am looking for some information and materials on the correlation
      between being main info source in the network (based on high
      indegree) and main info broker in the network (based on high
      betweeness).

      Currently I conduct pilot ONA project which is focused on social
      relations between workers from different departments who are supposed
      to collaborate with each other. I've noticed that in some cases
      experts who are main info sources in the network (the highest
      indegree) are simultaneously the key brokers. Does it mean that the
      circulation of information (and knowledge) is controlled by a small
      group of experts which became bottlenecks? In other cases the main
      info sources do not play the role of key brokers (based on
      betweeness). Would you interpret it as a better connected network,
      where more people have an access to the information (knowledge)and
      where main info sources are more keen to collaborate?

      Is it any general rule regarding the correlation between info sources
      and info brokers? How would you inteprate above mentioned situations?
      I am especially interested in your own experience. Any further
      materials (research papers, articles etc.) which tackle this issue
      would be highly appreciated.

      Many thanks in advance.

      Best,

      Pawel
    • Laurence Lock Lee
      Hi Pawel, I would think if you were getting the same nodes with high indegree and betweenness centrality then I suspect your network looks like it has a dense
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 2 7:01 AM
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi Pawel,

         

        I would think if you were getting the same nodes with high indegree and betweenness centrality then I suspect your network looks like it has a dense core and not a lot on the periphery. It could mean the network is well connected. It could also mean that the organisation is very hierarchical and that information only flows through senior people in the centre. Are the centrally connected also the more senior staff?

         

        Where your brokers tend to be different from your centrally connected I would look at their geographic or business unit attributes to see if they are bridging natural silos and whether the high in-degree actors are central to a silo. This is what I would expect to be more typical.

         

        rgds

         

        Laurence Lock Lee PhD

        Partner

        Optimice Pty Ltd

        Mob: 0407001628

        e-mail: llocklee@...

        blog: http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/

        web: www.optimice.com.au

         

        "learn to network, then network to learn"


        From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pstepka77
        Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2008 7:05 AM
        To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [ona-prac] Correlation between info sorces and info brokers

         

        Dear All,

        I am looking for some information and materials on the correlation
        between being main info source in the network (based on high
        indegree) and main info broker in the network (based on high
        betweeness).

        Currently I conduct pilot ONA project which is focused on social
        relations between workers from different departments who are supposed
        to collaborate with each other. I've noticed that in some cases
        experts who are main info sources in the network (the highest
        indegree) are simultaneously the key brokers. Does it mean that the
        circulation of information (and knowledge) is controlled by a small
        group of experts which became bottlenecks? In other cases the main
        info sources do not play the role of key brokers (based on
        betweeness). Would you interpret it as a better connected network,
        where more people have an access to the information (knowledge)and
        where main info sources are more keen to collaborate?

        Is it any general rule regarding the correlation between info sources
        and info brokers? How would you inteprate above mentioned situations?
        I am especially interested in your own experience. Any further
        materials (research papers, articles etc.) which tackle this issue
        would be highly appreciated.

        Many thanks in advance.

        Best,

        Pawel

      • andymmcdermott
        I just want to mention a point that is related to Pawel s original question and Laurence s response that I have found to be very insightful (i.e. made
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 4 10:35 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I just want to mention a point that is related to Pawel's original
          question and Laurence's response that I have found to be very
          insightful (i.e. made enterprise characteristics much clearer and
          predictable to me).

          1. indegree, centrality and other pure SNA measurements are
          independently accurate measurements. They provide a lot of
          legitimate guidance in who the main "communicators" are within a
          discipline. But the real question almost always seems to be - why
          this individual, these two individuals, or this repeat set of
          central players?

          2. I came strongly to believe that individual personalities and
          behaviors are vitally important. So, to double check this instinct I
          created a list of questions to identify how individuals see their
          roles/responsibilities and how they potentially respond to questions
          or communication statements. As a quick example CEO's and Exec VPs
          tend to look towards the future and understand the need for some
          flexibility; Production managers are more focused on predictable
          process management. As a result it became "easy" to predict how
          these two parties tend to communicate.

          3. There are many more parameters that can be considered in this
          sense but I have personally found that the top 5 usually cover most
          spectrums of actual communication within an enterprise. There are
          lots of books available...

          I appreciate any and all feedback


          --- In ona-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Laurence Lock Lee" <llocklee@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Hi Pawel,
          >
          >
          >
          > I would think if you were getting the same nodes with high
          indegree and
          > betweenness centrality then I suspect your network looks like it
          has a dense
          > core and not a lot on the periphery. It could mean the network is
          well
          > connected. It could also mean that the organisation is very
          hierarchical and
          > that information only flows through senior people in the centre.
          Are the
          > centrally connected also the more senior staff?
          >
          >
          >
          > Where your brokers tend to be different from your centrally
          connected I
          > would look at their geographic or business unit attributes to see
          if they
          > are bridging natural silos and whether the high in-degree actors
          are central
          > to a silo. This is what I would expect to be more typical.
          >
          >
          >
          > rgds
          >
          >
          >
          > Laurence Lock Lee PhD
          >
          > Partner
          >
          > Optimice Pty Ltd
          >
          > Mob: 0407001628
          >
          > e-mail: <mailto:llocklee@...> llocklee@...
          >
          > blog: <http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/>
          > http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/
          >
          > web: www.optimice.com.au
          >
          >
          >
          > "learn to network, then network to learn"
          >
          > _____
          >
          > From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com]
          On Behalf
          > Of pstepka77
          > Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2008 7:05 AM
          > To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [ona-prac] Correlation between info sorces and info
          brokers
          >
          >
          >
          > Dear All,
          >
          > I am looking for some information and materials on the correlation
          > between being main info source in the network (based on high
          > indegree) and main info broker in the network (based on high
          > betweeness).
          >
          > Currently I conduct pilot ONA project which is focused on social
          > relations between workers from different departments who are
          supposed
          > to collaborate with each other. I've noticed that in some cases
          > experts who are main info sources in the network (the highest
          > indegree) are simultaneously the key brokers. Does it mean that
          the
          > circulation of information (and knowledge) is controlled by a
          small
          > group of experts which became bottlenecks? In other cases the main
          > info sources do not play the role of key brokers (based on
          > betweeness). Would you interpret it as a better connected network,
          > where more people have an access to the information (knowledge)and
          > where main info sources are more keen to collaborate?
          >
          > Is it any general rule regarding the correlation between info
          sources
          > and info brokers? How would you inteprate above mentioned
          situations?
          > I am especially interested in your own experience. Any further
          > materials (research papers, articles etc.) which tackle this issue
          > would be highly appreciated.
          >
          > Many thanks in advance.
          >
          > Best,
          >
          > Pawel
          >
        • Paul Burton
          Andy -- thanks for sharing that post regarding individual personalities in relation to network scores. Mehra had a good article on personality and network
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 4 11:20 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Andy -- thanks for sharing that post regarding individual personalities in relation to network scores.  Mehra had a good article on personality and network correlates that I found helpful:
             
            http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/brass/spain/lowandhigh.pdf

            Paul  



            To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
            From: andymmcdermott@...
            Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:35:25 +0000
            Subject: [ona-prac] Correlation between info sorces and info brokers

            I just want to mention a point that is related to Pawel's original
            question and Laurence's response that I have found to be very
            insightful (i.e. made enterprise characteristics much clearer and
            predictable to me).

            1. indegree, centrality and other pure SNA measurements are
            independently accurate measurements. They provide a lot of
            legitimate guidance in who the main "communicators" are within a
            discipline. But the real question almost always seems to be - why
            this individual, these two individuals, or this repeat set of
            central players?

            2. I came strongly to believe that individual personalities and
            behaviors are vitally important. So, to double check this instinct I
            created a list of questions to identify how individuals see their
            roles/responsibilit ies and how they potentially respond to questions
            or communication statements. As a quick example CEO's and Exec VPs
            tend to look towards the future and understand the need for some
            flexibility; Production managers are more focused on predictable
            process management. As a result it became "easy" to predict how
            these two parties tend to communicate.

            3. There are many more parameters that can be considered in this
            sense but I have personally found that the top 5 usually cover most
            spectrums of actual communication within an enterprise. There are
            lots of books available...

            I appreciate any and all feedback

            --- In ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com, "Laurence Lock Lee" <llocklee@.. .>
            wrote:
            >
            > Hi Pawel,
            >
            >
            >
            > I would think if you were getting the same nodes with high
            indegree and
            > betweenness centrality then I suspect your network looks like it
            has a dense
            > core and not a lot on the periphery. It could mean the network is
            well
            > connected. It could also mean that the organisation is very
            hierarchical and
            > that information only flows through senior people in the centre.
            Are the
            > centrally connected also the more senior staff?
            >
            >
            >
            > Where your brokers tend to be different from your centrally
            connected I
            > would look at their geographic or business unit attributes to see
            if they
            > are bridging natural silos and whether the high in-degree actors
            are central
            > to a silo. This is what I would expect to be more typical.
            >
            >
            >
            > rgds
            >
            >
            >
            > Laurence Lock Lee PhD
            >
            > Partner
            >
            > Optimice Pty Ltd
            >
            > Mob: 0407001628
            >
            > e-mail: <mailto:llocklee@ ...> llocklee@...
            >
            > blog: <http://governancean dnetworks. blogspot. com/>
            > http://governancean dnetworks. blogspot. com/
            >
            > web: www.optimice. com.au
            >
            >
            >
            > "learn to network, then network to learn"
            >
            > _____
            >
            > From: ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com]
            On Behalf
            > Of pstepka77
            > Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2008 7:05 AM
            > To: ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com
            > Subject: [ona-prac] Correlation between info sorces and info
            brokers
            >
            >
            >
            > Dear All,
            >
            > I am looking for some information and materials on the correlation
            > between being main info source in the network (based on high
            > indegree) and main info broker in the network (based on high
            > betweeness).
            >
            > Currently I conduct pilot ONA project which is focused on social
            > relations between workers from different departments who are
            supposed
            > to collaborate with each other. I've noticed that in some cases
            > experts who are main info sources in the network (the highest
            > indegree) are simultaneously the key brokers. Does it mean that
            the
            > circulation of information (and knowledge) is controlled by a
            small
            > group of experts which became bottlenecks? In other cases the main
            > info sources do not play the role of key brokers (based on
            > betweeness). Would you interpret it as a better connected network,
            > where more people have an access to the information (knowledge)and
            > where main info sources are more keen to collaborate?
            >
            > Is it any general rule regarding the correlation between info
            sources
            > and info brokers? How would you inteprate above mentioned
            situations?
            > I am especially interested in your own experience. Any further
            > materials (research papers, articles etc.) which tackle this issue
            > would be highly appreciated.
            >
            > Many thanks in advance.
            >
            > Best,
            >
            > Pawel
            >




            Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. Share now!
          • Pawel Stepka
            Thank you for your very helpful and interesting responses. Since I have just started dealing with ONA I would be grateful if you could share your experience
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 15 4:04 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you for your very helpful and interesting responses.
               
              Since I have just started dealing with ONA I would be grateful if you could share your experience regarding some SNA measurements applied in the context ONA projects. I do realize that SNA indexes can indicate only the potential roles played by members of the organization and that the final assessment is only possible after the interviews with selected professionals. Nevertheless it seems interesting to me how would you define such important roles in organization like: brokers, boundary spanners and bottlenecks using only SNA measurements.
               
              In the first case it seems natural to use betweeness centrality to indicate main info brokers in the organization. Do you find it useful to calculate flow betweeness in this case, which takes into account the entire flow between two nodes (not only geodesic paths)? How would you interpret the results of flow betweeness analysis in the case of information flow within organization? What kind of other SNA indexes could be also used to detect main info brokers in the organization?
               
              Basically it is said that a very high in-degree (much higher than out-degree) or a very high betweeness centrality would suggest that the person would be a potential bottleneck. Do you think that persons with high rate of both indicators are more possible to become bottlenecks? Do you see any other SNA measurements which would verify this assumption (for example the combination of high in-degree, high betweeness and low out-degree) or which could be applied in this context?   
               
              Finally what kind of SNA measurements are in your opinion most suitable to recognize main boundary spanners in the organization (e.g. brokerage for ego networks and/or E-I index)?
               
              Any relevant articles or other materials on this subject would be appreciated.
               
              Many thanks in advance for your replies.
               
              Best regards,
               
              Pawel
               
              Dnia 4-08-2008 o godz. 20:20 Paul Burton napisał(a):

              Elementy potencjalnie niebezpieczne zostały zablokowane.
              Andy -- thanks for sharing that post regarding individual personalities in relation to network scores.  Mehra had a good article on personality and network correlates that I found helpful:
               
              http://gatton. uky.edu/faculty/ brass/spain/ lowandhigh. pdf

              Paul  



              To: ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com
              From: andymmcdermott@ yahoo.com
              Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:35:25 +0000
              Subject: [ona-prac] Correlation between info sorces and info brokers

              I just want to mention a point that is related to Pawel's original
              question and Laurence's response that I have found to be very
              insightful (i.e. made enterprise characteristics much clearer and
              predictable to me).

              1. indegree, centrality and other pure SNA measurements are
              independently accurate measurements. They provide a lot of
              legitimate guidance in who the main "communicators" are within a
              discipline. But the real question almost always seems to be - why
              this individual, these two individuals, or this repeat set of
              central players?

              2. I came strongly to believe that individual personalities and
              behaviors are vitally important. So, to double check this instinct I
              created a list of questions to identify how individuals see their
              roles/responsibilit ies and how they potentially respond to questions
              or communication statements. As a quick example CEO's and Exec VPs
              tend to look towards the future and understand the need for some
              flexibility; Production managers are more focused on predictable
              process management. As a result it became "easy" to predict how
              these two parties tend to communicate.

              3. There are many more parameters that can be considered in this
              sense but I have personally found that the top 5 usually cover most
              spectrums of actual communication within an enterprise. There are
              lots of books available...

              I appreciate any and all feedback

              --- In ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com, "Laurence Lock Lee" <llocklee@.. .>
              wrote:
              >
              > Hi Pawel,
              >
              >
              >
              > I would think if you were getting the same nodes with high
              indegree and
              > betweenness centrality then I suspect your network looks like it
              has a dense
              > core and not a lot on the periphery. It could mean the network is
              well
              > connected. It could also mean that the organisation is very
              hierarchical and
              > that information only flows through senior people in the centre.
              Are the
              > centrally connected also the more senior staff?
              >
              >
              >
              > Where your brokers tend to be different from your centrally
              connected I
              > would look at their geographic or business unit attributes to see
              if they
              > are bridging natural silos and whether the high in-degree actors
              are central
              > to a silo. This is what I would expect to be more typical.
              >
              >
              >
              > rgds
              >
              >
              >
              > Laurence Lock Lee PhD
              >
              > Partner
              >
              > Optimice Pty Ltd
              >
              > Mob: 0407001628
              >
              > e-mail: <mailto:llocklee@ ...> llocklee@...
              >
              > blog: <http://governancean dnetworks. blogspot. com/>
              > http://governancean dnetworks. blogspot. com/
              >
              > web: www.optimice. com.au
              >
              >
              >
              > "learn to network, then network to learn"
              >
              > _____
              >
              > From: ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com]
              On Behalf
              > Of pstepka77
              > Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2008 7:05 AM
              > To: ona-prac@yahoogroup s.com
              > Subject: [ona-prac] Correlation between info sorces and info
              brokers
              >
              >
              >
              > Dear All,
              >
              > I am looking for some information and materials on the correlation
              > between being main info source in the network (based on high
              > indegree) and main info broker in the network (based on high
              > betweeness).
              >
              > Currently I conduct pilot ONA project which is focused on social
              > relations between workers from different departments who are
              supposed
              > to collaborate with each other. I've noticed that in some cases
              > experts who are main info sources in the network (the highest
              > indegree) are simultaneously the key brokers. Does it mean that
              the
              > circulation of information (and knowledge) is controlled by a
              small
              > group of experts which became bottlenecks? In other cases the main
              > info sources do not play the role of key brokers (based on
              > betweeness). Would you interpret it as a better connected network,
              > where more people have an access to the information (knowledge)and
              > where main info sources are more keen to collaborate?
              >
              > Is it any general rule regarding the correlation between info
              sources
              > and info brokers? How would you inteprate above mentioned
              situations?
              > I am especially interested in your own experience. Any further
              > materials (research papers, articles etc.) which tackle this issue
              > would be highly appreciated.
              >
              > Many thanks in advance.
              >
              > Best,
              >
              > Pawel
              >




              Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. Share now!





              ----------------------------------------------------
              Nie wiesz jak dojechać docelu.pl ?
              Potrzebujesz mapy? Szukasz adresu? Kliknij:
              Kliknij: http://klik.wp.pl/?adr=www.Docelu.pl&sid=454
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.