In our JumpStart talks, we've listed the "lost knowledge" problem as a key application for organizational network analysis.
My brother-in-law sent me a copy of an article from Governing, a magazine for state and local government authorities. "Expert Exodus," is a case study of the Virginia Department of Transportation's knowledge management program. Maureen Hammer,head of KM for the VA-DOT used social network analysis in her work to understand the implications of the retiring "baby boomer" workforce. For those interested in this business application, it's a good read. I found it online as well:
Expert Exodus: As baby boomers retire, governments are trying to keep knowledge and experience from going out the door with them.
Hi Bruce - thanks for your words of encouragement! :-)
I like your thoughts regarding having an online library that builds in
the ability to understand the connectivity of those who use it. It
sounds like something that would would exist in parts but not all in
one piece.
The key technical issue in getting it to work is to ensure that it has
a sense of identity for who's looking at what. That is, it would need
to require the users to "log in". This would enable the library to
properly track user activity. This is provided for you within the
Yahoo! groups area, but I don't know if it's possible to extend the
functionality there - I doubt it. This would mean we'd need a server
somewhere that's connected to the ONA-prac community which then would
have its own identification mechanism. Not impossible by any means
but definitely a hurdle.
I don't have resources to do this but would be willing to help out!
Thanks again, Bruce.
Lee
On 3/29/06, Bruce Hoppe <Bruce@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Lee, I like your approach very much. In fact, I like it so much that I
> suggest we build this kind of functionality into ONA-prac.
>
>
>
> What I propose (very similar to what you are actually doing) is starting an
> ONA-prac library of resources—typically links to websites or PDFs with good
> info on ONA. By supplementing this online databank with a combination of
> Amazon, wiki, and blog features, we could
>
> Associate a set of recommendations next to each resource (like Amazon
> recommendations or blog comments), including contact links so that those
> with questions about a specific resource can contact those who recommended
> it
> Track who has looked at which resources (link by link, more specific than a
> wiki page)
> Track who has followed up with specific recommendations of specific
> resources (by instrumenting the recommendation links in a transparent way to
> record when people use them)
> Experience for ourselves the benefits and pitfalls of using SNA to help
> build our CoP
>
>
>
> Would anybody (Lee?) like to help set up an ONA-prac library like that?
>
>
>
> -Bruce
I've uploaded a Word file on ideas for getting honest answers from an
ONA survey. Thanks to Patti Anklam, Ann Hale, and Mike Prescott for
the insight and impetus. I look forward to your feedback; maybe we can
begin to build a list of best practices for survey methodology.
Best to all,
Joseph
www.deltorg.com
Here is another recent article about "lost knowledge" that also mentions the
use of SNA.
http://www.cio.com.au/index.php?id=1594109736
John Barrett
-----Original Message-----
From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 2:59 PM
To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ona-prac] Digest Number 13
There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Case example of the "lost knowledge" problem
From: "pattianklam" <patti@...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:15:38 -0000
From: "pattianklam" <patti@...>
Subject: Case example of the "lost knowledge" problem
In our JumpStart talks, we've listed the "lost knowledge" problem as a key
application for organizational network analysis.
My brother-in-law sent me a copy of an article from Governing, a magazine
for state and local government authorities. "Expert Exodus," is a case study
of the Virginia Department of Transportation's knowledge management program.
Maureen Hammer,head of KM for the VA-DOT used social network analysis in her
work to understand the implications of the retiring "baby boomer" workforce.
For those interested in this business application, it's a good read. I found
it online as well:
Expert Exodus: <http://governing.com/articles/2know.htm> As baby boomers
retire, governments are trying to keep knowledge and experience from going
out the door with them.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One other thought I meant to share on my own post below.
I sat in session 3 last Thursday (many thanks to Bruce, Patty and
Valdis for taking your time to provide an excellent overview of the
practicailities of performing a network analysis!) and after
understanding better the types of questions that would typically be
used, I would suggest that any kind of "data mining" (what I'm doing
here) to find connections is, by itself, not very insightful in terms
of understanding the real connections between members of a group. You
can understand areas of overlapping interest, which is part of doing
ONA but only a small part.
I think a better way to look at data mining in light of a larger ONA
effort is that it would help at step #3 - "Determine the group
boundaries". Using an automated discovery process can help you find
potential connections that further work (via surveys, etc) can help
elaborate. Without the insight from a more data-focused analysis, you
might miss some connections that really do exist but which cross
"normal" organizational boundaries.
Thoughts?
Lee
On 3/29/06, Lee Romero <pekadad@...> wrote:
> Hi all - I am pretty new to the ONA/SNA realm. I've attended the jump
> start sessions and have now done some more reading on the topic.
>
I'd like to add some comments about the ONA databank, stimulated by Bruce's comments:
A viable business model that motivates researchers, consultants, and organizations to share validated and anonymized network data in such a databank.
The "business model" for researchers and consultants could be simply having a wide empirical databank where to get more data, that could be compared across different organisations. My personal business model would be simply that, if a customer of mine ask me "what does it mean that my X department has index = 0.5?", I can say "Well, on the basis of the data possessed by ONA-prac CoP, I can say that, on average, effective X department has 0.4, so, maybe, your problem is not there". I know that each benchmarking could be misleading, and must be used carefully, but I think at any case that something is better than nothing.
I would avoid organizations. For network data must be strictly anonymouos, I think that only researchers and consultants should feed the databank with network data (once anonymized), and they should be the only owners of it.
Support from INSNA community and agreement on functional specifications of such a resource from the SNA perspective (what sorts of queries must be supported by an ONA databank).
I think ONA-prac CoP has all the competencies to design the databank. When you have an adjacency matrix you are free to make all the queries that you are allowed by current softwares, such as Ucinet. The problem are the rules for creating the matrices. In my opinion, we must as CoP agree on this rules. When we have defined them, we can also ask others (such as INSNA) for validation. I created a simple excel file for data input and I have uploaded it.
Funding from organizations with a strong interest in supporting the development of SNA both as a science and a business tool.
I think that sharing adjacency matrices that we create during our daily activities (both researches and consulting) is not costly. And it creates value as it enlarges our empirical basis. An organization that would fund the databank as a business tool, will probably eventually ask for ownership of the databank: on the contrary, I think that the owners must be only the members of the CoP.
In response to Giancarlo’s note on
the data bank, I have two comments
1)I totally agree with your
comment “I think that only researchers and consultants should
feed the databank with network data (once anonymized), and they should be the
only owners of it.”. I know the term “ownership” can be
construed in many ways but I think it means that we (the CoP members) are
stewards of the data and that we gather, hold, and share the data as a
Commons resource to help anyone who can use the anonymized results. I could
also foresee members using the databank as a resource for studies or papers
where the Community is given the recognition for gathering the data.
2)Regarding database design, I agree that the CoP or
some subset should work to create the design. I would hope that we do it
quickly and effectively with the focus on defining something where we can start
to gather and deliver results, not design the “perfect” data base.
Regards,
Nat
-----Original Message----- From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Giancarlo Oriani Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:45
PM To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [ona-prac] ONA
databank
I'd like to add some comments about the
ONA databank, stimulated by Bruce's comments:
·A viable business model that motivates
researchers, consultants, and organizations to share validated and anonymized
network data in such a databank.
The "business model" for
researchers and consultants could be simply having a wide empirical databank
where to get more data, that could be compared across different organisations.
My personal business model would be simply that, if a customer of mine ask me
"what does it mean that my X department has index = 0.5?", I can
say "Well, on the basis of the data possessed by ONA-prac CoP, I can say
that, on average, effective X department has 0.4, so, maybe, your problem
is not there". I know that each benchmarking could be misleading, and must
be used carefully, but I think at any case that something is better than
nothing.
I would avoid organizations. For
network data must be strictly anonymouos, I think that only researchers and
consultants should feed the databank with network data (once anonymized), and
they should be the only owners of it.
·Support from INSNA community and agreement
on functional specifications of such a resource from the SNA perspective (what
sorts of queries must be supported by an ONA databank).
I think ONA-prac CoP has all the
competencies to design the databank. When you have an adjacency matrix you are
free to make all the queries that you are allowed by current softwares, such as
Ucinet. The problem are the rules for creating the matrices. In my opinion, we
must as CoP agree on this rules. When we have defined them, we can also ask
others (such as INSNA) for validation. I created a simple excel file for
data input and I have uploaded it.
·Funding from organizations with a strong
interest in supporting the development of SNA both as a science and a business
tool.
I think that sharing adjacency
matrices that we create during our daily activities (both researches and
consulting) is not costly. And it creates value as it enlarges our empirical
basis. An organization that would fund the databank as a business tool, will
probably eventually ask for ownership of the databank: on the contrary, I think
that the owners must be only the members of the CoP.
A typical newbie response. It's OK... we were ALL newbies at one time!
;-)
You can not make these judgments "out of context" -- comparing the same
org over time, with the same questions/networks mapped, is less
problematic. You have to be real careful with cross-org comparisons.
SNA is not recipe driven.
I would also be REAL CAREFUL what goes in the databank -- do you have
the client's permission? Even if you think it is anonymous?
I have hundreds of data sets but I do not plan to share any that I do
not have explicit client approval to do so... some clients don't mind
you sharing a network visualization as long as they are not id'ed. But
actual data is not so simple. I may share my 9-11 terrorist network,
because I was my own client and it was all public data [BTW, what
format will the stored data be in?]. The other data sets I will keep
under lock and key. BTW, quite a few clients have asked me to
specifically destroy ALL data and documents related to their projects
and never speak of it to anyone. No, they were not members of the
intelligence community -- these were for-profit firms. SNA data is
VERY sensitive.
Proceed with caution!!!
Valdis
On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Giancarlo Oriani wrote:
> My personal business model would be simply that, if a customer of mine
> ask me "what does it mean that my X department has index = 0.5?", I
> can say "Well, on the basis of the data possessed by ONA-prac CoP, I
> can say that, on average, effective X department has 0.4, so, maybe,
> your problem is not there". I know that each benchmarking could be
> misleading, and must be used carefully, but I think at any case that
> something is better than nothing.
Proceed with caution indeed! I am attending an IT conference this week, and sat
through a session that urged attendees to "hire people with high centrality!"
-----
Proceed with caution!!!
Valdis
LOL! We have definitely reached the chaotic buzz stage of SNA/ONA
with all sorts of charlatan's making up marketing slogans. Hey Patti,
this may be a leading indicator of an impending Chernobyl event...
Steve Borgatti once shared a question a client asked him: how do I
make my organization scale free? We all laughed, then I suggested he
should have told them to hire a few bottlenecks... and we laughed some
more...
Valdis
On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Bordeaux, John wrote:
> "hire people with high centrality!"
These are definitely signs that we have reached the "peak of inflated expectations" (as Gartner calls it), so let's be clear that the next stage is the "trough of disillusionment"!
I just found time to read this past week the wonderful paper by Don Ronchi and Ron Burt (posted in our files section). We need more of these serious, careful projects and studies as we test the limits of where ONA ought and (most importantly) and should not go.
> On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Bordeaux, John wrote: > > > "hire people with high centrality!"
And Valdis Krebs <valdis@...> wrote: > > LOL! We have definitely reached the chaotic buzz stage of SNA/ONA > with all sorts of charlatan's making up marketing slogans. Hey Patti, > this may be a leading indicator of an impending Chernobyl event... > > Steve Borgatti once shared a question a client asked him: how do I > make my organization scale free? We all laughed, then I suggested he > should have told them to hire a few bottlenecks... and we laughed some > more... > > Valdis > > > On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Bordeaux, John wrote: > > > "hire people with high centrality!" >
Yes, Ron Burt's current book is also excellent -- "Brokerage and
Closure" -- integrates very well the thinking from his last dozen, or
so, major papers. Much more accessible than "Structural Holes".
Funny story... I was reading "Brokerage and Closure" [B&C] on a plane
and the woman across the aisle leans over and says "Oh, you are in Real
Estate also?" I smiled and said "Yup... Location, Location,
Location!"
Valdis
On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:30 PM, pattianklam wrote:
> I just found time to read this past week the wonderful paper by Don
> Ronchi and Ron Burt (posted in our files section). We need more of
> these serious, careful projects and studies as we test the limits of
> where ONA ought and (most importantly) and should not go.
The perfect database does not exist. In order to do it quickly and effectively, we could, for example, to improve the file I uploaded ("cartellainserimento.xls"). When we will get a general agreement on the design, we could start to gather matrices, and see whether it could be useful or not. Benchmarking has a long story: everybody knows that data must be used with caution and in the context, nevertheless people are using it. What make the difference is the possibility to get a "critical mass": when we will have, let's say, 200 matrices of R&D department, we will start to shed some light on what the hell those measures means.
In response to Giancarlo’s note on the data bank, I have two comments
1)I totally agree with your comment “I think that only researchers and consultants should feed the databank with network data (once anonymized), and they should be the only owners of it.”. I know the term “ownership” can be construed in many ways but I think it means that we (the CoP members) are stewards of the data and that we gather, hold, and share the data as a Commons resource to help anyone who can use the anonymized results. I could also foresee members using the databank as a resource for studies or papers where the Community is given the recognition for gathering the data.
2)Regarding database design, I agree that the CoP or some subset should work to create the design. I would hope that we do it quickly and effectively with the focus on defining something where we can start to gather and deliver results, not design the “perfect” data base.
Regards,
Nat
-----Original Message----- From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Giancarlo Oriani Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:45 PM To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [ona-prac] ONA databank
I'd like to add some comments about the ONA databank, stimulated by Bruce's comments:
·A viable business model that motivates researchers, consultants, and organizations to share validated and anonymized network data in such a databank.
The "business model" for researchers and consultants could be simply having a wide empirical databank where to get more data, that could be compared across different organisations. My personal business model would be simply that, if a customer of mine ask me "what does it mean that my X department has index = 0.5?", I can say "Well, on the basis of the data possessed by ONA-prac CoP, I can say that, on average, effective X department has 0.4, so, maybe, your problem is not there". I know that each benchmarking could be misleading, and must be used carefully, but I think at any case that something is better than nothing.
I would avoid organizations. For network data must be strictly anonymouos, I think that only researchers and consultants should feed the databank with network data (once anonymized), and they should be the only owners of it.
·Support from INSNA community and agreement on functional specifications of such a resource from the SNA perspective (what sorts of queries must be supported by an ONA databank).
I think ONA-prac CoP has all the competencies to design the databank. When you have an adjacency matrix you are free to make all the queries that you are allowed by current softwares, such as Ucinet. The problem are the rules for creating the matrices. In my opinion, we must as CoP agree on this rules. When we have defined them, we can also ask others (such as INSNA) for validation. I created a simple excel file for data input and I have uploaded it.
·Funding from organizations with a strong interest in supporting the development of SNA both as a science and a business tool.
I think that sharing adjacency matrices that we create during our daily activities (both researches and consulting) is not costly. And it creates value as it enlarges our empirical basis. An organization that would fund the databank as a business tool, will probably eventually ask for ownership of the databank: on the contrary, I think that the owners must be only the members of the CoP.
An actor with high degree is commonly call a "central connector"
An actor with high betweenness is commonly call an "information broker" or a "boundary spanner", depending on the characteristics of the actors/subgroups connected.
How would you call an actor with high closeness? I think his/her mainly characteristics are to get directly and quickly information and not to be controlled by intermediaries. I should say a "wired" actor. Has someone an evocative name to suggest?
I like Karen Stephenson's terms: hub, gatekeeper, and pulsetaker.
I am curious as to the levels of consensus around the use of terms to describe key network roles/characteristics.
John Ford
-----Original Message----- From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Giancarlo Oriani Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:52 AM To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ona-prac] How would you call it?
An actor with high degree is commonly call a "central connector"
An actor with high betweenness is commonly call an "information broker" or a "boundary spanner", depending on the characteristics of the actors/subgroups connected.
How would you call an actor with high closeness? I think his/her mainly characteristics are to get directly and quickly information and not to be controlled by intermediaries. I should say a "wired" actor. Has someone an evocative name to suggest?
-How about - a John Wayne (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
Barbara
> How would you call an actor with high closeness? I think his/her
mainly characteristics are to get directly and quickly information and
not to be controlled by intermediaries.
> Giancarlo
>
In the interest of practicing being a social network why not use social software, sometimes call social bookmarks. If you or one of the other leaders of the ONA registered us with http://del.icio.us as /ona_prac all web based documents could be tagged. I think Bruce Hoppe is tracking through delicious and furl all the ONA and SNA tags already on his blog http://connectedness.blogspot.com/.
Any documents not on a web site would need to be uploaded, but just about every one by now has either a business, university, blog or personal site to upload a document to so this should not be a big hurdle. By using the "ona_prac" tag with all items we will also be able to see how a taxonomy emerges over time - folksonomy.
Yes, Ron Burt's current book is also excellent -- "Brokerage and Closure" -- integrates very well the thinking from his last dozen, or so, major papers. Much more accessible than "Structural Holes".
Funny story... I was reading "Brokerage and Closure" [B&C] on a plane and the woman across the aisle leans over and says "Oh, you are in Real Estate also?" I smiled and said "Yup... Location, Location, Location!"
Valdis
On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:30 PM, pattianklam wrote:
I just found time to read this past week the wonderful paper by Don Ronchi and Ron Burt (posted in our files section). We need more of these serious, careful projects and studies as we test the limits of where ONA ought and (most importantly) and should not go.
If we can't get to the questions today, we will try to answer them in the
ONA Prac message section
Regards,
Nat
-----Original Message-----
From: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ona-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Craig A. DeLarge
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:57 PM
To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ona-prac] Economies Book?
What is that book and authors on economies that Seth referred to
earlier? This is fascinating! Talk about simplexing reality!
Yahoo! Groups Links
Different clustering algorithms will give slightly/highly different
clusters, representing CoP's, subcultures, etc. Each of these CoP's
can be tagged, therefore according to the clustering procedure you
use, you'll get different tags, i.e., different organizations of
knowledge. Your thoughts?
From: Joseph Wehbe
[mailto:j.wehbe@...] Sent: Friday, 7 April 2006 4:26 AM To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ona-prac]
Clustering/Tagging
Different clustering
algorithms will give slightly/highly different clusters, representing CoP's, subcultures, etc.
Each of these CoP's can be tagged, therefore according to the
clustering procedure you use, you'll get different tags, i.e., different
organizations of knowledge. Your thoughts?
Hi all - First, I wanted to say thanks to Seth, Bruce, Patti, Valdis
and all of the other speakers at the jumpstart series. It's been a
great learning experience for me and I really appreciate your time and
effort in sharing your knowledge.
Second - I did attend today's session and laughed when I saw my own
post in the presentation! Just for the record, I have no concerns
about it being there, Bruce.
Lastly - my random thought from today's session which I'm sure is
nothing new to most, but really hit home for me today - the Google
page rank algorithm that uses the linking between web pages to
influence the relevancy is the perfect example of the power of the
network as discussed in these sessions.
Part of the reason the algorithm is so powerful, I think, is because
using that network of links allows for identification of the nodes in
the network that have the highest degrees of centrality (of any of the
types of centrality you want to talk about) and those nodes are the
ones that are most likely to be what a searcher is looking for or at
least be close to the right destination. Just like in an
organizational network, it's the same people who are usually the
people you turn to for advice, information, etc. A moment of clarity
for me :-)
Just thought I'd share the thought.
Thanks again
Lee Romero
Yes!
And a quiz for everyone... which SNA/ONA metric is PageRank most like?
I have always wondered if the Google boys knew about SNA before they
came up with PageRank...
Valdis
On Apr 6, 2006, at 10:05 PM, Lee Romero wrote:
> the Google
> page rank algorithm that uses the linking between web pages to
> influence the relevancy is the perfect example of the power of the
> network as discussed in these sessions.
Joseph Webhe responded (April 3...message 69) to my request for more
information on getting honest answers. Thank you. Surely someone has
described answers to surveys before now and found categories which fit
the various types of responses. Here are a few categories of my own:
Honest answer - thoughtful and truthful
True answer - the most honest answer the person is comfortable
giving
Best guess - an answer formed quickly and in the range of truth
Guess - an answer formed quickly
Convenient lie - answer given to please someone else
Outright lie - answer given to precisely hide the truth
Survey sinker - answers given designed to make survey useless
I suppose you can think of all of these as "having validity". I
prefer to work in ways which address the range of threat, the degree of
relevance, the potential outcomes, the questions of anonymity, until
anxieties are more reduced and the persons being asked questions can be
more here and now and not busy imagining "worst case scenarios".
I have appreciated the comments from a number of you who thoughtfully
prepare survey questions and have a clear idea of the setting in which
ONA is practiced. Any references to the above will be greatly
appreciated. Ann Hale
Not sure, because I don't claim to really understand the Page Rank
algorithm all that well, but from what I've heard, it's like the
Eigenvector centrality measure - it reflects which sites are linked to
in a compounded sense. The anecdotal description I've heard is that a
"vote" for a site A is also an indirect vote for all sites that A
links to.
Lee
On 4/6/06, Valdis Krebs <valdis@...> wrote:
> Yes!
>
> And a quiz for everyone... which SNA/ONA metric is PageRank most like?
>
> I have always wondered if the Google boys knew about SNA before they
> came up with PageRank...
>
> Valdis
>
>
This is a great suggestion. If you were on the call yesterday, you know we're thinking about what ONA-prac 2.0 looks like, and this is certainly a piece of how that all ought to be put together.
thanks,
patti
From: Victoria G. Axelrod [mailto:vaxelrod@...] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:20 PM To: ona-prac@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [ona-prac] Re: ONA databank
Valdis,
In the interest of practicing being a social network why not use social software, sometimes call social bookmarks. If you or one of the other leaders of the ONA registered us with http://del.icio.us as /ona_prac all web based documents could be tagged. I think Bruce Hoppe is tracking through delicious and furl all the ONA and SNA tags already on his blog http://connectedness.blogspot.com/.
Any documents not on a web site would need to be uploaded, but just about every one by now has either a business, university, blog or personal site to upload a document to so this should not be a big hurdle. By using the "ona_prac" tag with all items we will also be able to see how a taxonomy emerges over time - folksonomy.
Yes, Ron Burt's current book is also excellent -- "Brokerage and Closure" -- integrates very well the thinking from his last dozen, or so, major papers. Much more accessible than "Structural Holes".
Funny story... I was reading "Brokerage and Closure" [B&C] on a plane and the woman across the aisle leans over and says "Oh, you are in Real Estate also?" I smiled and said "Yup... Location, Location, Location!"
Valdis
On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:30 PM, pattianklam wrote:
I just found time to read this past week the wonderful paper by Don Ronchi and Ron Burt (posted in our files section). We need more of these serious, careful projects and studies as we test the limits of where ONA ought and (most importantly) and should not go.
Great answer!
Eigenvector, as originally derived, did not work for directed networks,
but Phil Bonacich has a new metric that does.
Valdis
On Apr 7, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Lee Romero wrote:
> Not sure, because I don't claim to really understand the Page Rank
> algorithm all that well, but from what I've heard, it's like the
> Eigenvector centrality measure - it reflects which sites are linked to
> in a compounded sense. The anecdotal description I've heard is that a
> "vote" for a site A is also an indirect vote for all sites that A
> links to.
>
> Lee
>
> On 4/6/06, Valdis Krebs <valdis@...> wrote:
>> Yes!
>>
>> And a quiz for everyone... which SNA/ONA metric is PageRank most like?
>>
>> I have always wondered if the Google boys knew about SNA before they
>> came up with PageRank...
>>
>> Valdis
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hello,
I have come to this group through Bruce Hoppe's blog. I am currently
writing my dissertation on how social networks influence opportunity
recognition and resource mobilisation of small rural entrepreneurs in
India. I am registered for Ph.D. at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam but
currently in India. I intend working on ONA and am looking to propogate
this concept in India and am looking forward to read the previous post
and hopefully be able to participate in the discussions.
Suresh
Like a number of others, I became aware of the CoP via Bruce Hoppe's blog.
My name is Terry Murphy. I am a mature-age graduate student at RMIT
University in Melbourne Australia, in the final stages of the Master
of Arts (Virtual Communication) program. In researching for a course
on knowledge networks this semester, I came across Valdis Krebs'
website and was pretty much immediately hooked on the ONA concept. I
can't tell you what a buzz it is to see the authors of all those
papers I've been reading posting here in the CoP!
Terry
Send Email
