Posts tagged ‘innovation’
“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”
Right hand figure: two networks joined “loosely” by a single person, only slighetly engaged with either network. Was said to be a Prof. who sat on both communities [and therefore knew what both were doing] but did not really engage in their work.
Those people able to stimulate innovation have lots of WEAK ties which join communities. — This is the “strength of weak ties” principle.
The 1954 study is meant to be in Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations book…
Although this guy says 1954, everyone else seems to be citing a 1966 Colemand, Katz and Menzel paper:
Coleman, J.S., E. Katz and H. Menzel (1966) Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. The Bobby-Merrill, New York.
This (looks good): http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/difusion_teoria.pdf
suggests there are three early Coleman et al papers, none of which were in 1954:
Coleman, James S.; Katz, Elihu & Menzel, Herbert. (1957). The diffusion
of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry 20: 253-270.
Coleman, James S.; Katz, Elihu & Menzel, Herbert. (1959). Social processes
in physicians’ adoption of a new drug. Journal of Chronic Diseases. 9: 1-19.
Coleman, James S.; Katz, Elihu & Menzel, Herbert. (1966). Medical
Innovation: A Diffusion Study. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
there was a “movement” from 1954-1957, however.
What is “Granovetter Transitivity”??? Seems critical.
Original “strength of weak ties” paper is: Mark Granovetter (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties”; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6., May 1973, pp 1360-1380
A “strength of weak ties” precis by original author is here: http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/In_Out_and_Beyond/Granovetter.pdf
Dr. Derek S. Thomson 