SUPPORTING
MATERIAL
The collaborative agenda
Networks/clusters are a key vehicle to achieve
innovation
 Proposition is that the structure of network and the
position of actors within the network
enable/constrain the achievement of outcomes
 These connections & their topology often not fully
visible





The network lens (&Social Network Analysis) helps to identify connections and
relationships:
Where collaboration is occurring, and
Where it is not or should/could be
SNA is (1) guided by formal theory organized in
mathematical terms, and (2) is grounded in the
systematic analysis of empirical data
Keast, May 2011
Social network analysis

Intuition often not sufficient to understand & analyse large
networks

SNA empirically assesses/confirms relationships

Delivers:



Diagnostic & evaluative tool to:



visual representations – (maps)
metrics (statistics for analysis/review)
Configure & reconfigure patterns of relationships
Determine where to put effort for maximum gain
Affords within network, across networks & over time analyses
Key SNA terms, measures & statistics


Ego networks: Networks around a focal node (the ‘ego’) whom is directly
connected to all other actors
Centrality:






Betweenness – node others must go through to reach others
Highest closeness score goes through fewest
Density: how closely a network is knit. Measure for cohesion & integration
0-1, closer to 1 higher
Centralisation: how hierarchical the network is – i.e. power & influence
centred around a small core or dispersed more widely across membership
Average Path Distance: number of steps it takes for one person to ‘reach’
another – quasi measure of effectiveness – 2.6 (& cohesion)
Clusters: Patterns of either connected or isolated groupings – clusters of
nodes



Might be intentional or emergent
Anchored to a location & its resources
Network is the overlaying pattern of the connections that can be leveraged for
gain!
IRC (Brisbane) Connectivity: IRF
Networks

IRC Network is an Ego-network


Good mix of government/business/university i.e.
triple helix


Relational strength: 42% strong, 33% medium, 24%
weak
Argued to be essential for balance in information
sharing, innovation development & diffusion
Represents a hub-spoke model: The IRC is at the
centre (hub)

Hub& spoke models: can simultaneously (a) benefit hub
& (b) place stress on hub
IRC (Brisbane) Connectivity:
Australian Government

IRC Network is an Ego-network


Relational strength: 53% strong, 21% medium, 26% weak
Centrality measure indicates small core of 3
organisations


IRC, AusIndustry & Research in Business
High centralisation – concentration around small core


Not a distributed network
 High number of pendants, not well connected
AusIndustry may function as a link to other actors, i.e. a
brokerage role
Questions for consideration
 How
can AusIndustries facilitate IRC in
improving relations with actors that have
weaker ties?
 Could
IRC function as a broker in connecting
the pendants and increase information flows
through the network?
Questions for consideration
 Where
are the strong relations (existing
capital)?

There is no need for continual investment in strong
relationships. Effort can be focussed on increasing
‘weaker’ but important ties
 What


are missing relationships?
Are there known actors that are not represented in
this network?
Who has potential resources and can be brought
closer into the network?
IRC (Brisbane) Connectivity
Queensland government
 IRC

Network is an Ego-network
Equal mix of relationship strengths
2
most central actors are SITIA and ETE
 The network appears low in density and
highly centralised
Less cohesive networks perform less effective in
information sharing
 In high central networks, the core actor (IRC)
becomes a very important information broker

Questions for consideration
Are all the key players included in this network?
 Does this analysis outcome, meet the purpose
of the network? By increasing the density
(facilitating ties in-between other actors) the
network becomes more cohesive and can more
effectively coordinate action and share
information
 Low density and higher number of weaker ties is
an opportunity to facilitate new relations and
increase information flows

IRC (Brisbane) Connectivity
Business Sector

IRC Network is an Ego-network


Relational strength: 42% strong, 25% medium, 33% weak
Large network – many actors/nodes



Larger networks are harder to manage and/or coordinate, unless most actors are
on a same page/mission
Good spread of relationship strengths
The size makes it difficult for IRC (as the centre) to keep up with the relationships



Two small clusters within the network



There is an apparent need to be more strategic – leverage from strong relationships
and focus on building up medium & weaker ones, as strategically relevant
Larger networks have a higher potential for ‘sleepers’ (unused sources of information),
and actors tend to drop out when not enough interaction occurs
Business Enterprise Centres
Economic Development Offices
Likely based on commonality/heterogeniety – like actors links with like
actors


The BEC cluster appears equal in value
Logan Seems to be central in the EDO cluster
Questions for consideration
Larger networks are more vulnerable. Can
resilience be increase by facilitating clusters
within the network, such as the cluster around
the Business Enterprise Centres and the
Economic Development Offices?
 Why is Logan central in the BEC cluster? What
can IRC learn/gain from nurturing this relation?
 Why are some actors, for example UKTI and
BEDO, not linked into the smaller clusters?
What can IRC offer to increase
interrelationships for these clusters?

Conclusions


The IRC overall, appears to nurture a balanced set of
relations. Approx. 43% of relations is strong and another 30%
is of medium strength
Good mix of government/business/university


IRC has covered the ‘Triple Helix’. This is essential for its balance in
information sharing and coordinating actions
The covered networks are each Hub ‘n Spoke networks, with the
IRC at the centre. Hub ‘n Spoke models add additional stress to the
actor in the centre as the main ‘glue’ for the network



To increase the health of the network, additional clusters can be facilitated to
make the networks more resilient
There is an apparent potential to increase strategic relationships with more
important actors, and facilitate more information sharing among actors
Across the networks, the IRC has a healthy mix of relational
strengths with all the various types of stakeholders (state and
federal government, business, associations, offices and
universities
Conclusions (cont.)

The SNA analysis provides useful initial insights into the following:



Existing network relationships and ties
The structure & functioning of the networks
The maps can be used as a diagnostic tool to:



Uncover ‘hidden’ relationships & patterns of connection
Identify ‘missing’ relationships
Configure & reconfigure networks to be ‘fit for purpose’




Networks & relationships are a transaction cost


•
i.e. loose ties/cooperative relationships for information sharing (incremental innovation)?
Medium – coordination (strong centralisation) (radical)
Stronger ties/dense structure (core) collaboration (transformational)?
Relationships must be leveraged to produce outcomes
Points to the need for strategic approach
In the future, these maps can be used as evaluation tools for bench
marking networks. This requires further research into the networks as
the current study based on self-reported data from the ego is limited
Next steps

Instructive to collect data on the various networks based
on:




Questionnaires
Face-to-face interviews
Documents and/or reports
Additional information on types of relationships and
relationships between actors will further increase the
understanding of the Innovation Atlas context and
environment
Social Network Analysis (considerations)
The following slides list a set of considerations for this report and additional
theoretical information to explain some of the terms used. It also contains a set
of ‘Self-help Questions’ that allow to start increasing the effectiveness of
strategic relations



This report based on ego/self report data
Benchmarking: all networks & systems are unique & contextually
determined, reflecting their people, history, foci & responsibilities
 Although there are some accepted models,
 There are not ‘right’ or ‘correct’ patterns of connection
 Care should be taken with cross-case comparisons
 Coupling other methods e.g. Case study or interviews adds
value
While SNA offers a different approach & empirical insights into structure &
connections
 Also very useful tool to prompt good questions that stimulate genuine &
informed dialogue & planning
 Does this network structure support its stated purpose?
 Are the right organisations involved?
Building networks
Strategic Leveraging

Networks & clusters based on relationships or ties:


These are a key resource that should be drawn up on
leveraged to generate new outcomes – innovations,
knowledge etc
Tendency to work/link with ties that already have a
strong investment (existing social/relational capital that
can be drawn upon for some time) (like linking with like)

This can limits access to new resources, knowledge & ideas

Instead should be more strategic in relationship use &
target those ties/nodes that hold essential resources, but
are weak or not in place.


Strong ties are important for coherency & joint action
Weak ties are important for introducing new ideas,
knowledge & resources to the network/cluster
Reconfiguring network ties & structures






Increase the number of ties: introduce new people to the
network, hold seminars – or establish particular roles to
broker connections
Bridge structural holes: institutionalise or expand the
roles of people who are connecting different parts of the
network
Increase connective capacity: create understanding of
the function of ‘position’ within the network & its benefits
& constraints
Increase the flow of information/ideas: open up
communication channels, increase frequency of
interactions, tap into weak ties
Strengthen relationships: work together, socialise, use
ICT to support/supplement personal connections
Reduce cliques: Rotate leadership/management
functions
Hub & spoke models
 Typically
the H&S holds the purpose of the
network/cluster & sets the style of interaction

Intentionally created or emergent
 Propensity
for the most central agency/entity in
the ‘hub’ to become the face
Both positive & negative implications
 Facilitates brokerage capacity & coordination
 Overloaded in terms of information flows
(gatekeeper) & has the role of building &
maintaining all the spoke relations – there is no/little
backup, this is hard to sustain overtime

Strategic relationship building
considerations
Keast, November 2010
Strategic relationship building
 Building

up relationships
Who do you need to establish relations?

How strong does the link need to be?
 Borrowing

Where do you already have strong relations?


How can you use these better/use alternative sales formats?
Use these as links to other sales opportunities
 Dissolving



How could these be ramped up ?
Should they be dissolved ?
Are they just habit ?
 What



relationships
Who do you have strong but not productive relations with?


on existing relationships
organisational adjustments are required?
Systems and processes
Behaviours & expectations
Management & leadership
Evaluation approaches
Keast, November 2010
Strategic relationship building
supporting questions:
Identify those groups/organisations with which your Project/
organisation should have a relationship with to achieve project
outcomes.
Circle those with whom you already have a relationship
Of those circled consider if the current strength or nature of the
relationship is sufficient to secure outcome.
For relationships that are considered not strong enough, identify
possible strategies to strengthen.
Similarly it might be necessary to weaken relationships to secure
outcomes.
For the firms not circled consider (a) what engagement strategies
should/could be employed to mobilise commitment/involvement
and (b) how strong the relationship needs to be.