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


tman9999@...
 

I have never thought about it that way, but in a conversation on LinkedIn that is exactly how Niels Pflaeging put it in response to my comment about this excellent LinkedIn article, "Org Physics: How a triad of structures allows companies to absorb complexity".


My comment may be found below the article - as of today it is the newest comment there. Niels replied to it, defending his position. 


I thought some of the siKM folks might be interested in joining the discussion, and perhaps providing some alternative perspectives on this front. 


-Tom Short


 


Fred Nickols
 

Thanks for the link, Tom.  Very interesting read.

Fred Nickols


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. 

Kate


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


Katepugh <katepugh@...>
 

Resending with Tom's original post (and the link) below Fred's 

On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Katepugh katepugh@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

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 i s 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. 

Kate


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

From Tom Short 


Patti Anklam
 

Hi, all,

Certainly I have to respond to such a provactive subject line!  Thanks, @katepugh for the mention. Nils argues that the SNA is only a snapshot in time. That is what I always say when I teach SNA. But the snapshot can lead to useful questions and insights...

More, however: Once I saw where the article and "complexitools" was going with value creation structure I kept looking in the original and the comments for a nod to Verna Allee, who really broke this ground a long time ago; I have long been a believer (I almost always use a value network analysis when I work with organizations). So it is nice to see it rise again, but it would also be good to see some attribution or reference.

/patti