Re: SNA: utterly worthless and possibly damaging? #SNA-ONA-VNA

Katepugh <katepugh@...>

Tom, Nils et al

Nice article! I think Nils has taken what we all do with SNA (map structures as they show flow of information, disease, influence, etc.) and just singled out the "reputation" structure into its own science.

At Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Master's we have been teaching about SNA for six years. It is just basically graph theory (and mathematics) where the "nodes" are people and the "edges" can be anything. We have students include reputation or influence as one edge, and describe potential interventions. 

I agree we all should do SNA for a reason, and understandings of value creation and reputation are great reasons. Giving a specific SNA that maps reputation a privileged spot in our thinking is a good idea. It is not a new science. But it is a valuable focus, and so are others like managing addiction, obesity, and reproductive health. 

@Patti Anklam, who has influenced my thinking, has always said that SNA -- or rather, the mapping part -- is just the first step. It provokes questions. Putting a lens on the org or other set of connected items, even machines, and representing it visually in a novel way is a worthy art. 


Katrina Pugh
Academic Director 
Columbia University Information and Knowledge Strategy Master's Program

On Feb 16, 2017, at 6:24 AM, fred@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Thanks for the link, Tom.  Very interesting read.

Fred Nickols

Join to automatically receive all group messages.