Using Networks to Spread Ideas
by Tim Kastelle
Yesterday I talked about some of the benefits and challenges of distributed innovation within organisations. One of the biggest challenges you face when you make everyone responsible for innovation is this - how do you get new ideas to spread throughout the broader group? This is part of what John and I are studying in our major research project at the moment. We have a three year grant to look at innovation networks within project-based firms. As we're getting further into the research, it is becoming clear that this issue of idea diffusion is one of the biggest problems that these firms face.
Earlier this week, we did a pilot study for a student's part of the project. Their question concerns how people search within their networks for information that they need. Because we haven't made a good video talking about this yet, here is Venessa Miemis explaining some of the issues:
(there's more good stuff from her here)
So the network facilitates innovation, as well as the diffusion of information - but how? That is what we're trying to figure out because the 'how?' part has generally been treated as a black box. To get at this, we will map networks within four groups of people in one firm that share a knowledge area, but who are spread across a number of different locations. This week, we tested the survey on a small group in the firm, and we learned some interesting things even from this.
This is one of the networks that we mapped. It shows the links based on responses to the question 'who provides me with significant knowledge?' In this case, we defined significant knowledge as that which was essential for solving a work-related problem. There are a couple of interesting things that we learn from this.
The first is that it is a relatively sparse network. This surprised the group - the manager thought that we wouldn't learn much from this team because they worked very closely together and they are highly cohesive. Still, even within a highly cohesive team, knowledge is not evenly distributed.
The second issue concerns the diamond formed by the four people in the middle of this network. This group of four was at the core of all of the different networks that we mapped. The surprising thing here is that this structure actually reflects the formal hierarchy of the group pretty closely. Organisational network analysis often shows that the informal networks are quite different from the formal structures of the firm. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. We've actually found this in other parts of our research in other firms as well. So we're starting to think that in distributed innovation networks, hierarchy is actually more important than we expect it to be. This is still very speculative, but it's potentially interesting.
The bottom line is that when our innovation efforts are distributed, it is critical to understand the structure of our knowledge-sharing networks.
Tim Kastelle is a Lecturer in Innovation Management in the University of Queensland Business School. He blogs about innovation at the Innovation Leadership Network.
Yesterday I talked about some of the benefits and challenges of distributed innovation within organisations. One of the biggest challenges you face when you make everyone responsible for innovation is this - how do you get new ideas to spread throughout the broader group? This is part of what John and I are studying in our major research project at the moment. We have a three year grant to look at innovation networks within project-based firms. As we're getting further into the research, it is becoming clear that this issue of idea diffusion is one of the biggest problems that these firms face.Earlier this week, we did a pilot study for a student's part of the project. Their question concerns how people search within their networks for information that they need. Because we haven't made a good video talking about this yet, here is Venessa Miemis explaining some of the issues:
(there's more good stuff from her here)
So the network facilitates innovation, as well as the diffusion of information - but how? That is what we're trying to figure out because the 'how?' part has generally been treated as a black box. To get at this, we will map networks within four groups of people in one firm that share a knowledge area, but who are spread across a number of different locations. This week, we tested the survey on a small group in the firm, and we learned some interesting things even from this.
This is one of the networks that we mapped. It shows the links based on responses to the question 'who provides me with significant knowledge?' In this case, we defined significant knowledge as that which was essential for solving a work-related problem. There are a couple of interesting things that we learn from this.The first is that it is a relatively sparse network. This surprised the group - the manager thought that we wouldn't learn much from this team because they worked very closely together and they are highly cohesive. Still, even within a highly cohesive team, knowledge is not evenly distributed.
The second issue concerns the diamond formed by the four people in the middle of this network. This group of four was at the core of all of the different networks that we mapped. The surprising thing here is that this structure actually reflects the formal hierarchy of the group pretty closely. Organisational network analysis often shows that the informal networks are quite different from the formal structures of the firm. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. We've actually found this in other parts of our research in other firms as well. So we're starting to think that in distributed innovation networks, hierarchy is actually more important than we expect it to be. This is still very speculative, but it's potentially interesting.
The bottom line is that when our innovation efforts are distributed, it is critical to understand the structure of our knowledge-sharing networks.
Tim Kastelle is a Lecturer in Innovation Management in the University of Queensland Business School. He blogs about innovation at the Innovation Leadership Network.Labels: collaboration, Innovation, Psychology, Tim Kastelle
posted by Blogging Innovation at 8:23 AM
3 Comments:
As much as I am intrigued by network analysis, I can't help but feel that it doesn't provide any more--or less--information about the whole context or situation than a skeleton describes about a body, or a wire-frame diagram provides about a three-dimensional shape. Too many dimensions of critical information are missing to venture toward complete explanations. And then there's the temptation to view a network as an enduring "steady state" instead of a snapshot in time. It would be interesting to see research around network resilience or adaptability (evolution?) under the pressure of changing circumstances (layoffs, the introduction of new players, unexpected crises that force re-evaluation of both physical and knowledge resources). Isn't it true that environmental stresses force networks to realign or restructure, and in that moment, innovation is borne?
Excellent point Ken! That's part of what we're trying to get at in this research. Our research partners are all in fairly dynamic industries, and we're going to track networks over time to try to figure out how they adjust to new people, losing key players, etc. There are some very nice analytical techniques for doing this. I'll report back as we learn more!
As to your main point, I agree that networks are definitely simplifying models. At the same time, while a skeleton only tells you part of the story about the human body, there are a lot of things that you can't understand if you don't know that the skeleton is there and how it is structured. Same with networks, to my mind. I'm also doing some work looking at the quality of information flow through a network, but that's very preliminary...
So I think they can be quite useful, provided that we keep the limitations in mind.
I guess the important point is that the awakening of a different level of self-consciousness into a network opens new channels for thinking, organization and action, including intentionally cultivating new alignments or configurations, or strengthening skills, or placing higher priority on "novel" information flows, to increase network resilience and adaptive capacity.
Post a Comment
<< Home