Mysore Call Girls 8617370543 WhatsApp Number 24x7 Best Services
Value of Technology Enabled Networks
1. The Value of
Technology Enabled Networks
Bala Iyer
October 2011
Peter Gray, Sal Parise and Bala Iyer. Innovation Impacts of Social Tagging Systems,
Vol 35, No. 3, pp 629-643. MIS Quarterly.2011
2. Agenda
Research question: What is the value of social
tagging
Introduction to Technology-mediated Networks
Research Methodology
Results
Creating a personal social media strategy
2
3. What do we know about social IT (Web 2.0)?
Awareness and adoption of social IT by organizations
continue to grow, but impacts are mixed/uncertain
Features and impacts of social IT (blogs, wikis, tagging)
differ from those of traditional IT
Direct, measurable impacts difficult to assess since focus
is on employee connectivity to unstructured knowledge
Traditional IT focused on representation
Social IT focuses on interpretation
3
4. What was our research project trying to answer?
What is the value proposition of social collaboration IT
tools, from the perspective of knowledge workers in
organizations?
Do social tools improve personal innovativeness?
We focused on:
Bookmarking/tagging application
4
5. What we found….social technology matters!
Its not just frequency of use that is important with these
tools, but rather, who you are connecting to
Brokerage, in technology-mediated networks, has a
positive impact on personal innovativeness
5
6. Repositories vs. social IT
Codification Personalization
Technologies can be Information flows are
used to centralize fundamentally social
information Different people see
Search tools to help the world differently
discover best Who you talk to
practices/solutions matters
Quality of information
matters
Page 6
7. Big Gamble?
No processes, no control, no validation
No real inkling what people will use these for
Throw the switch & stand back?
How would we know if it’s working?
How can we justify the investment?
Page 7
13. Unstructured knowledge is becoming increasingly
important in today’s workplace
What is “unstructured” knowledge?
Relevant topics that are dynamic and real-time
Content in many forms: videos, podcasts, blogs,
documents, etc.
Often needed on virtual, global project teams
Need access to people, not just content
Difficult to put in formally structured databases
Hard to find!
13
14. Technology-mediated networks: the people-to-people connections
enabled by social IT
Yes, there are “productivity” gains: virtual file cabinet,
improve version control of documents, reduce e-mail
But, these tools have social benefits:
– build awareness (of skills, role, projects, department)
– build affiliation (community, common interests)
– build community in online spaces
– Provide richer, dynamic meta-data (profiles, pictures,
ratings, comments)
Ultimately, they build connections among people with
shared interests or help find subject-matter experts
14
18. Social Tagging and Web 2.0
"I look to see who the other people are on
del.icio.us who tag the same things that I
think are important. Then, I can look and see
what else they've tagged ... and that
multiplies your ability to find things that are
interesting and useful, and other people feed
off of you."
Howard Rheingold
Page 18
19. Many organizational innovations can be explained by the
movement of ideas and information from one social
context to another, “from where they are known to where
they are not” (Hargadon 2002)
The history of innovation is littered with discoveries that
arise from fortuitous interactions between individuals
who were unaware that their separate efforts had
mutual relevance (Hargadon 2002).
. Together, these are “social navigation” (Dieberger
1997), where one individual’s choice of which online
resources to visit is influenced by the prior actions of
others.
Page 19
20. Dependent variable
Personal innovativeness: the extent to which
an individual actively generates, discovers,
and promotes creative ideas
“This person generates creative work-related
ideas,” and “This person promotes and
champions work-related ideas to others”
Page 20
21. Quantity and diversity of Information
H1: The number of times an individual
accesses social bookmarks will positively
predict his/her level of personal
innovativeness.
Access larger numbers of bookmarks,
Page 21
22. Quantity and diversity of Information
H2: The number of people an individual
connects to by accessing their social
bookmarks will positively predict his/her level
of personal innovativeness
Access the bookmarks of larger numbers of
people (ranging from 1 to 100 alters, with a
mean of 24.30)
Page 22
23. Tag Following Network Shape
H3: The extent to which the people an individual
connects to by accessing their social bookmarks
are not themselves connected through the
bookmarking system will positively predict that
individual’s level of personal innovativeness.
Access the bookmarks of people who are less
likely to provide redundant information (Effective
sizes ranged from 1 to 60.1, with a mean of
11.39)
Page 23
24. Brokers – people in networks that have access to
diverse information and connect subgroups
A Broker position in a network has access to & connects different subgroups
(e.g., locations, levels, tenure). Because brokers have access to unique
information, they tend to be innovative and high performers.
Broker score = Total connections minus redundant connections
A1 is in a much better brokerage position than B1 Effective Size
B2 B1
A2 A1
B8
A8
B3 B4
A3 A4
B7
A7
B5 B6
A5 A6
Broker score for A1= 7. No redundancy. Broker score for B1 << 7. Lots of redundancy.
Each node represents a different employee
24
25. Tag Following Network Shape
H4: The extent to which the network of people
an individual connects to by accessing their
social bookmarks provides indirect access to
many non-redundant bookmarks will positively
predict his/her level of personal innovativeness.
Access the bookmarks of people who
themselves are exposed to more nonredundant
information via their own use of a bookmarking
system (Effective reach ranged from 1 to 90,
with a mean of 22.09)
Page 25
28. Empirical Approach
Global professional services firm with strong research focus
Well developed tagging technology (50k tags in 2 years)
Stratified sampling of 150 users across high/medium/low usage
Collected tag-following data for two years; split into year 1 vs. 2
Subjects nominated 1 to 2 evaluators who provided responses on
personal innovativeness using Scott and Bruce (1994) scale”
Innovative Performance (stakeholder assessment) 1 to 6
scale used:
1). This person generates creative work-related ideas.
2). This person promotes and champions work-related ideas to others.
Page 28
33. Implications
Network theories offer better explanation than system-
use theories
Who one obtains info from matters more than how much obtained
Key theoretical pivot required in the form of new
theoretical processes not contemplated in the original
Structural Holes theory
Implications for source theory: selectivity in info seeking
may explain some of what has been assumed to be
selectivity in info sharing
Implications for other E2.0 technologies like blogs wikis?
Page 33
34. Managerial Implications
A low-cost way of directing one’s attention in
useful ways
First empirical evidence in a non-relational context (we
think)
Maximize early wins by rolling out to units where
creativity is key?
Educate employees about brokerage, exploring
novel connections?
Use network analysis tools to help employees
see how their tag following networks differ from
others?
Page 34
35. References
Peter Gray, Sal Parise and Bala Iyer. Innovation Impacts of
Social Tagging Systems, Vol 35, No. 3, pp 629-643. MIS
Quarterly.2011.
Salvatore Parise, Bala Iyer, Donna Cuomo, Bill Donaldson.
MITRE Corporation: Using social technologies to get connected.
Ivey Business Journal, January/February 2011.
Salvatore Parise, Patricia J. Guinan, and Bala Iyer Harnessing
Unstructured Knowledge: The Business Value of Social
Bookmarking at MITRE, IEEE Engineering Management Review,
Volume 38 Number 3, 2010.
35
36. Dependent variable
Of the full set of 150 subjects, 120 (80
percent) provided evaluator names.
Six-point Likert scales anchored on “strongly
disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (6)
Reliability across the two measurement items
was 0.95. strong inter-rater reliability (r =
0.92) between pairs of evaluators. (scores
ranged from 1 to 6, mean 4.26, standard
deviation 1.74).
Page 36