20140714 stephenson_plenary_business_networks

7/22/14

1

1

- -

NETWORKS, KPIs & CASE STUDIES

Karen Stephenson, Ph.D. www.ne=ormresources.com www.drkaren.us

How are we all connected?

2

7/22/14

2

Early Entrepreneurial Profile

4

Ego centric center

2014 © Karen Stephenson; NetForm Resources

Mature Entrepreneur

5

Ego centric center


An Ecology

6


7/22/14

3

MEASURING THE HUMAN ASSET


KPI: HUMAN CAPTIAL

Section Title (12 point Arial; color = white) Human Capital is the constellation of native intelligence, education and acquired skills that over time shapes who we are as individuals. Social Capital is human capital interacting with its social environment such that over time it cures into a trusted community of connections.

Intellectual Capital


KPI: SOCIAL CAPITAL

Section Title (12 point Arial; color = white)

Human Capital is the constellation of native intelligence, education and acquired skills that over time shapes who we are as individuals. Social Capital is human capital interacting with its social environment such that over time it cures into a trusted community of connections.



7/22/14

4

HC + SC = KPI of ASSET

Section Title (12 point Arial; color = white) Human Capital is the constellation of native intelligence, education and acquired skills that over time shapes who we are as individuals. Social Capital is human capital interacting with its social environment such that over time it cures into a trusted community of connections.



MEASURING THE HUMAN ASSET


Trust

Transactions Authority

THREE LAWS OF RELATIONSHIPS


7/22/14

5

Trust

Transactions Authority

ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES

Market - - The Firm

- Network


Indirect linkages are not subject to direct control

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

14


CD

C R

enai

ssan

ce The Unintended Consequences of Good Intentions

U.K. Netherlands

Belgium France

The unintended consequences of good intentions

ACCIDENTAL CONNECTOR © 1996-2014 NetForm™

7/22/14

6

DEGREE

DISTANCE BETWEEN

CENTRALITY KPI


DNA & CRITICAL MASS

17

•  Hubs: are people who are highly and directly connected with many people; communicating and disseminating knowledge throughout a region.

•  Gatekeepers: link people and customers together acting as information gateways and brokering knowledge between economic sectors.

•  Pulsetakers: are subtle having the maximum influence across cultural differences and working entirely through indirect means.

A critical threshold of 5% is required to guarantee sustainable change.


HUBS

DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE MOST PEOPLE Hubs are those individuals who have one-on-one relationships in an organization (or in any other kind of social grouping). They are typically those team members who seem to know everyone in their department very well, who tend to know the “lay of the land” or how things are done and are the repositories for local knowledge. They know where the best resources are and they act as clearinghouses of information and ideas. 2014 © Karen Stephenson; NetForm Resources

7/22/14

7

GATEKEEPERS

CONNECTED TO THE “RIGHT” PEOPLE

Gatekeepers generally do not have as many one-on-one relationships but the relationships they do have are with central players. They “control” the access and flow of information by serving as bridges between individuals and groups. They are often self-aware of their own power and distinguish between the “sin of commission” (e.g. telling a falsehood) and the “sin of omission” (e.g. telling a half-truth). They embody “leverage.”


PULSETAKERS

CONNECTED TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE “RIGHT” PEOPLE Pulsetakers are connected to the greatest number of people indirectly (e.g. “a friend of a friend is a friend” and “a friend of an enemy is an enemy”). Generally Pulsetakers have a wide array of contacts that extend beyond the limits of their immediate groups. They are people who have a diversity of interests and group membership. They are generally connected to the most central players in many different departments and work teams. As such, they are very attuned to the “pulse” of the organization and are remarkable at distinguishing “weak signals” from noise.


Human Capital (HIERARCHY)

Social Capital (NETWORKS)

© 1996-2014 NetForm™

UNIVERSAL DUALITY

7/22/14

8

Heterarchy = 3 or more distinct organizations locked in inter -dependent collaboration, where each is not privileged over the other and a shared governance presides.

Network = 3 or more individuals locked in mutual reciprocal exchange, exchange that is both “interested’ and repetitive.

STRUCTURE TRUMPS SCALE


Consists of at least 3 or more distinct hierarchies each with its own raison d’être, which must must collaborate and share governance to accomplish a collective good more complex than any one hierarchy can manage or achieve on its own.

DEFINITION OF HETERARCHY


Now: Hierarchy New: Network Next: Heterarchy

THE 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES


7/22/14

9

DEFINITIONS

•  Network >  A network is a structure consisting of 3 or more people tied together in relationships

typified by reciprocal, repetitive, interested, non-random patterns of exchange. >  The first primordial structure to emerge from the human family, inextricably linked to

cultural genesis & genocide. •  Market

>  A market is a structure consisting of discreet, dyadic, dis-interested, non-repetitive (one-off), random exchanges (typical of transactions).

>  Markets act like a knowledge Diaspora, such that information virally spreads regardless of legal (or moral) boundaries (Adam Smith’s the invisible hand).

•  Hierarchy >  Hierarchy has qualities of both markets and networks and consists of routine

exchanges (repetitive like a network) with a governing authority (derived from simple market contracts) to mitigate uncertainty and risk.

>  Hierarchy behaves like an island of planned coordination in a sea of market transactions giving rise to “the firm” (Alfred Chandler’s the visible hand)

•  Heterarchy >  A heterarchy is a structure consisting of 3 or more organizations bound together in

interlocking partnerships, typified by reciprocal, repetitive, nonrandom, asynchronous and asymmetric exchanges.

>  Although these hierarchies have their own raison d’ être, they must cooperate with each other and share in the governance of the whole other in order to accomplish a collective good that no one hierarchy can manage or achieve on its own.


Trust NETWORK

Transactions DYADIC

Authority CHAINS

ELEMENTARY STRUCTURES


Shell for less than 4 yr � 4 yr < Shell < 15 yr � Shell > 15 yr �

Shell <1yr �

Shell > 4yr � 2yr < Shell < 4yr �

1yr < Shell < 2yr �

ONBOARADING AT SHELL

7/22/14

10

Ø  Gather nominations from the population.

Ø  Cull nominations, clean data for “ballot box stuffing,” etc.

Ø  Analyze data by question type and determine top 100 or so

“connectors.”

The Process of Connecting

Ø  Ask connectors if they know each other with a 5 minute

survey.

Ø  Convene connectors in a public recognition ceremony.

Ø  Let connectors and other civic leaders decide/develop next

steps.

Step 1: Soliciting Nominations

Step 2: Project Outcomes


East Midlands

East of England

London

SW region

NW region

Community Connectors & Collaborations

CD

C R

enai

ssan

ce

7/22/14

11

24

2320

18

16

12

6

21

1718147

919

FP age, C.

OM Smith C.

ML iquori sh, C.

MKing, C.

FJohnson, C.

MP ain, C.

OHart C.

MS pend love-Mason, G.

MHolyoak, C.

ORobinson C.

MRook, C.

OHal lam C.

FS impson, C.

FRoeb er, C.

MS watr idge, C.

OT ooley C.

OWood C.

MS idey, C.

OBrem ner C.

OS .Hil l C.

OHack C.

FA.Hil l, C. F

Ack er ley, C.

MBeaty , C.

FBurrel l, C.

OCal li s C.

MChar lish, C.

ME ver ett , C.

MB Smith, C.

ODann C.

OF uch s C.

OGraves C.

OF ield C.

OGalto n C.

OE van s C.

ODunton C.

ODewes C.

Strategy

22

20

13

4

21

162514 8

FP age, C.

OM Smith C.

ML iquori sh, C.

MKing, C.

FJohnson, C.

MP ain, C.

OHart C.


MHolyoak, C.

ORobinson C.

MRook, C.

OHal lam C.

FS impson, C.

FRoeb er, C.

MS watr idge, C.

OT ooley C.

OWood C.

MS idey, C.

OBrem ner C.

OS .Hil l C.

OHack C.

FA.Hil l, C. F

Ack er ley, C.

MBeaty , C.

FBurrel l, C.

OCal li s C.

MChar lish, C.

ME ver ett , C.

MB Smith, C.

ODann C.

OF uch s C.

OGraves C.

OF ield C.

OGalto n C.

OE van s C.

ODunton C.

ODewes C.

Decision making

8

Councillors

FP age, C.

OM Smith C.

ML iquori sh, C.

MKing, C.

FJohnson, C.

MP ain, C.

OHart C.


MHolyoak, C.

ORobinson C.

MRook, C.

OHal lam C.

FS impson, C.

FRoeb er, C.

MS watr idge, C.

OT ooley C.

OWood C.

MS idey, C.

OBrem ner C.

OS .Hil l C.

OHack C.

FA.Hil l, C. F

Ack er ley, C.

MBeaty , C.

FBurrel l, C.

OCal li s C.

MChar lish, C.

ME ver ett , C.

MB Smith, C.

ODann C.

OF uch s C.

OGraves C.

OF ield C.

OGalto n C.

OE van s C.

ODunton C.

ODewes C.

Innovation

18

Councillors

FP age, C.

OM Smith C.

ML iquori sh, C.

MKing, C.

FJohnson, C.

MP ain, C.

OHart C.


MHolyoak, C.

ORobinson C.

MRook, C.

OHal lam C.

FS impson, C.

FRoeb er, C.

MS watr idge, C.

OT ooley C.

OWood C.

MS idey, C.

OBrem ner C.

OS .Hil l C.

OHack C.

FA.Hil l, C. F

Ack er ley, C.

MBeaty , C.

FBurrel l, C.

OCal li s C.

MChar lish, C.

ME ver ett , C.

MB Smith, C.

ODann C.

OF uch s C.

OGraves C.

OF ield C.

OGalto n C.

OE van s C.

ODunton C.

ODewes C.

Day to day working

Organizing Data

SOCIAL CAPITAL DEFINITIONS & DIAGNOSES

>  Leaders - potential or recognized

>  Mentor/Mentee - providers or seekers of expert advice, professional development and coaching

>  Problem-Solvers - innovators or implementers, good team members,

>  Rising Stars - established or having great potential, outstanding in their fields

>  Who’s on the list that you expected to see? Confirms what you

know to be true. >  Who’s on the list that you didn’t expect? Surprise! A truly hidden

resource, but why? How would you use these individuals in the future?

>  Who should be on the list but isn’t. Why? How to match current mission needs with these people to give them opportunities to grow and to be visible?

>  Who is on the list that raises a concern for you? What actions are possible to remedy your concern?

>  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2007) >  Millennial study in Philadelphia (2008) >  Louisville, Kentucky (2009) >  Tucson, Arizona (2010) >  Portland, Oregon (2011) >  Bluegrass, Kentucky (2012)

SUMMARY of CONNECTOR PROJECTS

7/22/14

12

34

Time Line Connector project initiated.

A methodology based on the UK studies was adapted to the US.

Nominations for connectors were solicited using local

organizations, print and televised media and social media.

4800 nominations were collected on the basis of 7 questions and

culled them to the top 101.

80% of the 101 were surveyed using 4 questions to determine if

they were connected to each other.

The Connectors were convened.

A new leadership curriculum for high school students and

professionals was developed.

A new Millennial study was launched.

Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Winter 2006

•  Dec 5, 2006

In 2007 In 2008

Modified snowball sample using 7 questions

Connectors

Census Bureau Asking your Friend

Nomination Questions: •  Who is innovative and brings big picture ideas to projects? •  Who has expertise or expert knowledge to turn great ideas into reality? •  Who has integrity, concern for the common good and the guts to help get things done? •  Who is effective at implementing and would roll up their sleeves to see work through with you to the end? •  Who would you depend on to help bring together and wisely coordinate resources to meet challenges? •  Who in your own neighborhood or local community could you depend on to make the area the best in the world? •  Who would you go to for advice outside of your own race, class, social circle, gender, religion, age group?

7/22/14

13

Connectors “connect” across 4 questions

1.  Among this list of 101, who do you know well enough to pick up a phone to call on to roll up his or her sleeves and see an effort through to the end?

2.  Among this list of 101, who is in your local community (whatever you consider to be your community)?

3.  Among this list of 101, who do you think has the expertise or expert knowledge to turn great ideas into reality?

4.  Among this list of 101, who would you want to work with?

FM

Acad emia

F

M

Government

F

M

No t-fo r-profit

F

M

Priv ate Sector

Mapping Philadelphia's Connectors by Gender

F1 01

F

2 5

F

8 3

M1 8

M6

M5

M

8

F4 8

F7 4

F

7 2

F

9 1

F8 9

F5 0

M

9

M2 8

M3 9

M9 7

M8 1

M3 0

M

6 1

M1 00

F

1 4

F1 0

F1 1

F

9 9

F

3 7

F9 3

F

1 7

F4 1

F1 3

F

2 2

F2 9

F

6 7

F3 3

F

4 3

F6 2

F3 2F

2 1

F

4 0

F

3 8

F

5 1

F

1 9

F9 0

F

6 6

F

4 2

F

5 6

M6 9

M

5 5

M4 7

M

4 4

M2 3

M2 7

M2 6

M8 2

M7 7

M

3 5

M

9 4

M8 5

M

2 4

M

5 9

M

7 1

M2

M3

M1 5

M6 0

M

7 8

M6 8

M

1 2

M8 6

M

8 4

F

6 4

F

4

F8 7

F3 1

F9 6

F

1 6

F

4 9

F6 5

M

5 7

M7 5

M

5 4

M7

M6 3

M4 6

M

5 2

M

8 8

M3 6

M

3 4

M7 3

M9 2

M

8 0

M4 5

M5 3

M

5 8

M

9 8

M7 6

M2 0

M7 9

M

9 5

M7 0

These are the economic sectors

Not for Profit

Government

Private

Academic

F F

F

F

M

M

M

M

39

- -

CASE STUDIES

Karen Stephenson, Ph.D. www.ne=ormresources.com www.drkaren.us

Small Business & Entrepreneurship

20140714 stephenson_plenary_business_networks