Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Virginia Maracine et al
mapping <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relationships among <strong>the</strong> subjects with a focus on <strong>the</strong> exchanges <strong>of</strong> information and
knowledge taking place in <strong>the</strong> network.
The above actions are performed by SNA through <strong>the</strong> following steps (Cross et al., 2002):
Identification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> target group: a number <strong>of</strong> four rehabilitation teams (clinics) with <strong>the</strong>ir patients
were identified at <strong>the</strong> INRMFB – a unique rehabilitation hospital in Romania. In general it is
recommended to pick up groups that cross physical, functional and even organizational
boundaries; from this perspective, <strong>the</strong> INRMFB meet all <strong>the</strong>se requirements.
Design <strong>the</strong> survey: in general different surveys may be designed to identify different kind <strong>of</strong>
networks, such as (i) Information network, (ii) Advice network, (iii) Learning networks, etc. The
survey that we have designed particularly for <strong>the</strong> INRMFB is used to reconstruct <strong>the</strong> existing
relational systems (see section 3 for <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paper).
Collect <strong>the</strong> data: <strong>the</strong> survey was distributed through <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CoP from <strong>the</strong>
Rehabilitation Clinic no. 3 and 4 within <strong>the</strong> INRMFB. It is important to secure a very high response
rate in <strong>the</strong> unit (between 80% and 100%) to not miss key individuals in <strong>the</strong> mapping.
The following set <strong>of</strong> attributes is considered in <strong>the</strong> survey to characterize a node to node link (N2N):
The object <strong>of</strong> exchange: which is <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> exchanged information;
The frequency <strong>of</strong> exchange: how <strong>of</strong>ten interaction happens;
The medium <strong>of</strong> exchange: how exchange takes place? F2F conversations, telephone, email,
formal communication (e.g. standard letter, forms, bulletins …). A medium continuum has been
defined by Daft and Langel (1986) in which medium changes according to equivocality <strong>of</strong>
information. The less equivocal is <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> information that has to be exchanged, <strong>the</strong> more
standardize and impersonal <strong>the</strong> communication medium is.
The development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey has taken into consideration variables operationalization and survey
structures already developed in <strong>the</strong> SNA literature.
2.3 Analysis: Identification <strong>of</strong> critical aspects and areas <strong>of</strong> improvements
The surveys content will be used to produce sociograms that will be analyzed by using SNA s<strong>of</strong>tware
(NodeXL and UCINET). The s<strong>of</strong>tware will produce graphical representations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> network structures
and compute relevant structural indicators. These outputs will allow us to identify network roles and
possible problems.
Roles are identified in <strong>the</strong> literature in various ways. For example:
a) Cross et al. (2002) base <strong>the</strong>ir definitions on <strong>the</strong> structural properties and <strong>the</strong>y have found:
connectors;
boundary spanners;
information brokers;
peripheral specialists.
b) Gould et al. (1989), in terms <strong>of</strong> brokerage capability and function, identify:
coordinator;
gatekeeper;
representative;
itinerant brokers.
c) Rogers (2003) in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> function played by an individual in knowledge diffusion processes:
innovators;
opinion leaders.
d) While Gladwell (2000) reports about:
connectors;
salesmen;
mavens.
Usually, typical organizations’ structural problems regard:
presence <strong>of</strong> bottlenecks in <strong>the</strong> information/knowledge flows (e.g. individuals that are too
central and suffer from work or information overload);
lack <strong>of</strong> boundary spanners, i.e. individuals providing effective connection among diverse
groups;
584