Date of download: 7/28/2017
Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.
From: Analysis of Collaborative Design Networks: A Case Study of OpenIDEO
J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2014;14(2):021009-021009-8. doi:10.1115/1.4026510
Figure Legend:
The concept graphs have higher diameter (b) and lower density (c) than the social graphs, despite roughly equivalent network sizes
(a). This is possible due to small levels of clustering within the concept graph, and the fact that the social graph has certain
mechanisms built in that reduce the graph diameter (see Sec. 4). The concept graph exhibits low centralization (e) and low global
efficiency (f), while the social graph exhibits medium centralization and low efficiency. In both cases, higher efficiency would be
more advantageous in order to ease transfer of ideas and feedback, respectively. Figure 1 provides some visual intuition behind
these results.