Posts from the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
American economist Richard Thaler, who discusses his book Nudge.
BBC Radio 4 – Start the Week – Mon, 23 Mar 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j67mh/Start_the_Week_23_03_2009/ The principle could have relevance to design interpretation by stakeholders, but its’ premise is somewhat old-hat – e.g. the flies in the urinals in Schiphol airport. Actually, now that I’ve listened to it again – it’s not that relevant. A bit basic aside from the “nudge” buzzword. The concept of a snag or a bump in an economist’s model, or in a stakeholder’s perception / attention is interesting, however. They also talk about a “nudge” as if it’s a perversion of an intended behaviour pattern by users: maybe analogous to battles against architectures of control in building design and process design, perhaps???
Too late – off to bed – not like I’ve got hours and hours of teaching tomorrow, anyway. Hang on…
“Weak ties are not less valuable than strong ties, but more valuable: they need media through which they can develop”
^^^
CRITICAL – this would be the purpose of SNA use to stimuate innovation – to find the weak ties and provide them with resource.
My interpretation:
If your network contains people who are not in operaitonal proximity to you, they will not help you innovate.
Connected communities of practice become a collective – but temporary – “community of interest.” These linked communities of practice will be in operational proximity of each other (with regard to the problem considered).
The “boundary object” is the problem. It is the thing that connects the communities of practice because they each have a (different) interest in the object.
A boundary object could be machines, software, rules, procedures, etc. — anything imposed by the org’s technostructure.
“A boundary object has meaning within the conceptual knowledge systems of at least two communities of practice.”
INNOVATION and CREATIVITY result because the meaning (understanding) of the boundary object is NOT the same in the communities of practice – it is this difference in understanding that breeds innovation and creativity.
Can be physical proximity, but more importantly – cognitive / attitudinal proximity.
Operational proximity happens when
– people share the same physical space and
– share ownership of the same problem
you need both for operational proximity to occur.
Operational proximity introduces different points of view to a problem. This “differentiation” happens easily in organisations because they form themselves into informal social groups (cliques??)
Differentiation happens when different groups have “Cognitive Separation” (Lorch) – i.e. a different point of view on the problem.
See Tagliaventi and Mattarelli (2006) – Human Relations J.
A barrier to operational proximity is “cognitive separation”
“Technostructures” – e.g. Mintzberg – the work of the professional core is increasingly managed through application of a technostructure
– compare and contrast McDonalds with a University. — suggests “technostructures are getting stronger in Universities” – increasing dogma with increasing throughput.
A “community of practice” has a shared social process. The identity of the community is built around what is shared – a conception, an informal process, etc.
Source ??? of “communities of practice” = Etienne Wenger 1998
Innovations are stimulated / useful / likely ??? when they spread between communities of practice.
Without weak ties, there is no real diffusion of innovation – formal processes/structures arent relevant.
A community of practice may stagnate “turning core competencies into core rigidities” — phon: “selly-brown and doogan” – “innovation and use of VLEs”
Dr. Derek S. Thomson 