I've just finished a very simple social network analysis exercise for an organisation of 121 people. The alleged problem according to the very vocal few, the most vocal of whom is a recognised white knight , was that "there is no communication in this organisation". The CEO to his credit decided to do something about it, but first he wanted objective data. He did not want an expensive exercise that took weeks to collect data: rather he wanted a simple exercise that would give him a feel for the problem, after which he would decide whether or not a complete social or organisational network analysis would be required. The map below is the gross result.

Now a few things a worth noting. The network is a complete closed network; that is there are no isolates, and in fact there is only one pendant (at one o'clock). This probably reflects the very high response rate (116 of 121) and the question (more on that in a moment). The density of the network is 0.226. So what does this mean?

Density is the tightness of the weave. If everyone were connected to everyone else then the network density would be 1. Denser networks have greater resilience. Density is also a proxy for collaboration and productivity. Now consider the map below.

Red lines indicate daily communication and blue lines twice weekly, as opposed to all communication. Also the four departments of the organisation are grouped and boxed. Now with this filter on the network density is nothing like 0.226, but it is evident there is a good deal of inter-departmental communication occurring, generally through a couple of focal people. The branch structure of each department is also evident in the daily communication links, which is entirely expected. This network remains connected and has great collaboration potential. It appears they know who to seek information from and how to access that information from a different department.

So what is the right density? Well the answer is there is no correct or ideal density. The value will vary according to the purpose and value-creating characteristics of the network. There is some evidence that open networks are best for innovation and learning, and closed networks are better for focused detail work. Also different questions will give very different results. In this case the question was deliberately "open" and subject to interpretation. Communication could mean, for example, in-person discussion or email traffic. A more specific question might have produced a very different result.

This was a very simple exercise that took just two days. One question was asked and data were collected and recorded directly into an EXCEL spreadsheet. The EXCEL spreadsheet was structured as a roster of names in a matrix format, and the cells had a drop down value to indicate frequency of interaction. An e-mail was circulated asking people to complete the spreadsheet, and this was followed up with an in-person visit. For most people the exercise took no more than five minutes. Once the spreadsheet was complete it was imported into NetMiner 3 . This was the tool of choice because of its visualisation, block-modelling and brokerage capabilities, which are subjects for future discussion. Simplicity of design was key.

The goal of the activity was to get a feel for the communication network, and to see if there were any obvious problems. In the deeper analysis some opportunities were identified to weave some areas across departments so they were a bit tighter, but more importantly the weave was based on evidence. However, what really mattered was how comfortable people were with the network when they saw it, and the conversations that followed, particularly where those conversations led to action. In this case the majority of people and the leadership group were comfortable.

Regards Graham