Page 1

B RINGING     S OCIAL   N ETWORK   A NALYSIS   I NTO   M AINSTREAM   B USINESS   Relationship  Patterns  That  Really  Matter  to  Business.     The  key  achievement  for  business  methods  such  as  Six  Sigma,  LEAN  and  The  Balanced  Scorecard  is  that  the   tools  and  responsibilities  have  been  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  specialists  in  the  quality  control  department,  and   put  into  the  hands  of  the  business  practitioners.  If  Social  Network  Analysis  is  to  head  down  a  similar  path  we   need  to  also  make  this  transformation.  

Laurence Lock  Lee   Cai  Kjaer   June  2011  

0  


June 2011  

BRINGING SOCIAL   NETWORK  ANALYSIS   INTO  MAIN  BUSINESS   INTRODUCTION   While  the  science  of  Social  Network  Analysis   (SNA)  has  been  with  us  for  close  to  80  years,  the   business  of  SNA  is  still  trivially  small.  Of  the   approximately  500,000  management  consulting   firms  in  the  world  today,  just  a  fraction  of  1%   offer  SNA  services.  So  what  is  the  problem?     If  we  look  at  the  biggest  ideas  that  dominate  the   offerings  of  the  major  management  consulting   firms  we  will  invariably  find  services  around   Benchmarking,  Balanced  Scorecards,  Six  sigma,   Lean  Manufacturing,  Business  Process   Management,  Knowledge  and  Information   Management,  Enterprise  Systems,  Outsourcing,   Strategic  Planning,  Innovation  Management,   Supply  Chain  Management  and  the  like.     How  do  they  differ  from  SNA?  As  Davenport  and   Prusak  wrote  in  their  book  on  “What’s  the  Big   Idea”,  most  successful  business  ideas  are  ‘idea   practitioner’  led.  This  is  also  the  case  for  the   majority  of  management  consulting  services.   Davenport  and  Prusak  open  their  book  by   contrasting  the  fortunes  of  the  scientist  led   Westinghouse  and  the  business  innovator  led  GE   conglomerates.  Only  one  is  thriving  today.   SNA  has  a  rich  research  heritage,  as  evidenced  by   the  thriving  INSNA  research  community.   Intellectually  stimulating  and  relevant  across  a   breadth  of  disciplines,  from  psychology,   computer  science,  organisational  science,  health   science,  management,  SNA  continues  to  hold   popular  appeal  in  the  research  community.  But  is   it  the  science  heritage  that  is  holding  SNA  back  in   the  business  world?  Are  SNA  consulting  projects   being  continually  framed  as  research  projects?   Are  potential  clients  and  consultants  fearful  of   having  inadequate  skills  or  expertise  to  conduct  

www.optimice.com.au

the analysis?  Is  it  time  for  us  to  mature  SNA  from   requiring  academic  rigor  to  business  impact?   As  a  point  of  comparison  we  would  offer  Six   Sigma  as  an  interesting  case  in  point.  The  name   suggests  a  strong  statistical  heritage.  In  normal   circumstances  the  word  ‘statistics’  would   generate  fear  and  feelings  of  inadequacy  in  the   business  community.  Yet  for  Motorola,  who  is   credited  with  its  invention,  Six  Sigma  is   substantially  about  simple  tools  that  are  in  reach   of  virtually  all  business  practitioners,  with  the   more  sophisticated  statistics  only  surfacing  at  the   higher  levels  of  certification.  The  key   achievement  for  Motorola  and  subsequently  the   plethora  of  Six  Sigma  adoptees  is  that  the  tools   and  responsibilities  were  taken  out  of  the  hands   of  specialists  in  the  quality  control  department,   and  put  into  the  hands  of  the  business   practitioners.   If  SNA  is  to  head  down  a  similar  path  we  need  to   also  make  this  transformation.  The  language  of   SNA  needs  to  change  from  the  scientific  terms  of   degree  centralities,  betweenness,  closeness,   densities,  structural  equivalence  etc.  to  the   language  of  business.  Davenport  and  Prusak  talk   about  the  three  classic  business  objectives  of   Efficiency,  Effectiveness  and  Innovation  that   underlie  the  majority  of  successful  business  ideas.   They  go  on  to  classify  different  ideas  against  each   of  the  above.  Not  surprisingly,  SNA  does  not   appear  on  their  list.  Yet  SNA  can  and  has   contributed  strongly  to  all  three  of  the  classic   objectives.   In  this  paper  we  explore  a  number  of  SNA  case   studies  where  we  have  devised  some  simple  tools   to  address  the  classic  business  objectives  as   identified  above.  Our  intent  is  to  come  up  with  a   standard  set  of  tools  that  reflect  the  power  of   SNA,  but  in  the  context  of  classic  business   objectives  like  efficiency,  effectiveness  and   innovation.  In  linking  SNA  results  to  the  classic   business  objectives  we  have  made  some   propositions  that  we  articulate  here.  We  are   happy  to  engage  in  constructive  discussion  to   hopefully  achieve  a  robust  suite  of  SNA  tools  for   the  business  practitioner.  What  Motorola  

1


June 2011  

achieved with  Six  Sigma,  we  now  need  to  do  with   SNA.  

UNPACKING THE  CLASSIC   BUSINESS  OBJECTIVES   For  the  business  practitioner  ‘show  me  the   money’  is  the  default  test  for  any  new  business   idea.  In  this  section  we  will  ‘unpack’  the  three   classic  objectives  of  Efficiency,  Effectiveness  and   Innovation  and  provide  some  practical  network   centric  solution  propositions  that  directly  address   them.  

EFFICIENCY Efficiency  is  arguably  the  most  commonly   addressed  business  objective.  Efficiency  can  be   simply  measured  by  dividing  the  level  of  output   by  the  level  of  inputs  into  the  creation  of  the   product  or  service.  Classic  top  down  approaches   like  Lean  Manufacturing,  Business  Process  Re-­‐ engineering  and  Six  Sigma  achieve  efficiency   through  identifying  and  removing  wasteful   processes,  and  limiting  variation  across  business   processes.   For  mature  operations  the  limits  of  these   approaches  appear  when  continued  application  of   these  techniques  no  longer  result  in  improving   bottom  line  performance.  This  may  be  due  to   improvements  in  one  area  resulting  in  negative   results  in  others  i.e.  just  moving  the  problem.   Alternatively  a  misplaced  push  to  drive  out   variation  could  in  fact  ‘kill  off’  innovation   performance  for  example.  What  traditional  top   down  techniques  suffers  from  is  an  inability  to   capture  the  intricacies  of  knowledge  intensive   work  activities.  These  activities  tend  to  surface   after  ‘quick  win’  efficiency  gains  have  been  made,   and  invariably  demonstrate  stubborn  immunity  to   the  application  of  traditional  efficiency  improving   techniques.   By  applying  a  ‘Network  Lens’  to  the  challenge  of   improving  organisational  efficiency,  we  do  not   attempt  to  delineate  business  processes  directly.   We  propose  that  knowledge  intensive  work  is   inevitably  surfaced  through  interactions  between   www.optimice.com.au  

people. A  typical  SNA  activity  will  expose   dependencies  between  knowledge  workers.  The   SNA  map  becomes  the  business  process  map   equivalent.  By  overlaying  the  formal  organisation   chart  over  the  SNA  map  it  can  become  clear   where  the  organisational  inefficiencies  exist.   The  traditional  hierarchical  organisation  chart  is   optimised  for  top  down  communication.  For   communicating  a  board  of  directors’  strategic   intent  down  to  the  operational  levels,  the   hierarchy  is  clearly  efficient.  This  organisational   form  is  however  far  from  efficient  in  facilitating   the  cross-­‐unit  collaboration  demanded  by  current   day  business  activities.  The  escalation  of  issues  up   and  down  the  hierarchy  is  a  substantial  overhead   and  a  drain  on  efficiency.  To  identify  where   organisational  inefficiency  is  most  prevalent,  we   prefer  to  look  at  dependency  relationship   ‘demand’  mismatches  between  organisational   units.  Our  proposition  is  that  peak  efficiency  is   achieved  when  dependency  across  the  formal   organisational  units  are  perfectly  balanced  i.e.   there  is  no  business  units  that  are  overloaded  and   there  are  no  under-­‐utilised  business  units.     Additionally,  we  propose  that  an  individual   business  unit  is  most  efficient  when  there  is  a   balance  between  the  degree  to  which  it  depends   on  other  business  units  and  the  degree  to  which   other  business  units  depend  on  it.  In  essence,  this   is  a  form  of  demand  ‘mass  balance’.  Now  this  is   clearly  an  ideal  case  and  there  will  inevitably  be   reasons  for  demand  imbalances  in  practice.   However,  it  provides  a  focus  for  investigating   organisational  inefficiencies.  We  use  a  simple   SNA  in-­‐degree  measure  as  a  demand  proxy  and   conduct  the  analysis  at  the  ‘business  unit’  level,  to   identify  each  unit’s  efficiency  within  the   organisational  ecosystem:  

Figure  1  -­‐  Organisational  Unit  Demand  Balance  

2


June 2011  

The above  demand  balance  chart  was  generated   from  40  business  units  of  a  major  Italian   headquartered  bank.  The  chart  shows  only  those   units  with  the  greatest  dependency  imbalance   either  from  excess  of  demand  on  other  units  over   demand  for  its  own  services  (value  sink)  or  an   excess  demand  for  its  own  services  over  demands   it  makes  on  other  units  (value  source).     Both  extremes  are  not  sustainable  if  maximum   efficiency  is  to  be  achieved.  Value  sinks  draw   heavily  from  other  units  but  provide  little  in   return.  Value  sources  may  appear  more  positive,   but  they  could  also  be  bottlenecks  and  they  will   eventually  need  to  draw  more  from  other  sources   if  they  are  to  maintain  their  value.  Additionally,   we  also  know  that  when  trusted  relationships   exist,  that  business  processes  that  encompass   these  relationships  execute  much  more   efficiently,  than  where  trust  does  not  exist.  We   use  reciprocal  links  as  a  trust  proxy  and  a   complementary  measure  of  efficiency  for   individual  organisational  units.   Once  these  potential  sources  of  organisational   inefficiency  have  been  identified,  it  is  then   possible  to  analyse  the  source  of  this  inefficiency.   For  a  ‘value  sink’  it  could  be  that  the  unit  lacks   visibility  or  has  simply  not  had  enough  time  to   establish  itself.  Alternatively,  the  unit  may  just  be   ill  conceived  and  not  working,  and  therefore   should  be  restructured.  For  a  ‘value  source’  unit  it   could  be  suffering  from  a  lack  of  resources,  poor   capability  or  an  aversion  to  asking  for  help  from   other  units.   Contrasting  the  above  suggested  interventions  to   those  that  often  result  from  traditional  top  down   approaches,  we  can  see  that  we  are  concerned   less  with  specifying  changed  or  reduced  work   activities  and  more  concerned  with  building  more   efficient  organisational  relationships  beyond  the   dictated  formal  hierarchy.  Changed  work   activities,  as  required,  would  therefore  result   from  organisational  units  taking  ownership  of   balancing  their  own  demand  dependencies,   resulting  in  a  more  sustainable  change   management  scenario.  

www.optimice.com.au

EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness  can  be  somewhat  of  a  slippery   concept.  In  its  common  context  it  is  seen  as  the   ability  to  ‘get  intended  results’.  It  is  sometimes   tethered  to  Efficiency  by  being  defined  as  ‘doing   the  right  thing’  in  contrast  to  ‘doing  it  right’   (efficiency).    If  we  use  this  latter  definition  we   could  ask  ‘what  prevents  an  organisation  doing   the  ‘right  thing’.     At  the  highest  level  we  could  target  the  senior   management  and  boards  of  directors  and  their   ability  to  correctly  identify  the  appropriate   strategic  direction  for  the  organisation.  At  every   other  level  we  could  define  effectiveness  down  to   the  individual  decision  choices  that  we  make  in   aligning  our  activities  and  results  with  the  defined   strategic  intent.     We  argue  that  effectiveness  is  therefore   inextricably  linked  to  the  organisation’s   competencies  and  capabilities  invested  in  its   members.  We  contend  that  a  highly  competent   and  capable  organisation  will  inevitably  be  an   effective  one.   Competency  management  has  typically  been  the   territory  of  the  Human  Resources  organisation.   Competency  is  typically  identified  with  the   individual  and  their  ability  to  perform  a  defined   job.  The  traditional  top  down  approach  to   competency  management  will  define  jobs  at   different  levels  of  the  organisation  in  terms  of   required  competencies.  Organisations  like   Lominger    have  undertaken  to  define  particular   competencies  and  competency  levels  required  for   particular  jobs  types.  Defined  competencies  have   been  used  for  performance  assessment;  training   needs  identification  and  organisational  capability   analysis.   As  useful  as  these  top  down  approaches  to   competency  management  are,  we  would  argue   that  a  major  limitation  exists  in  its  focus  on  the   individual.  We  would  argue  that  organisational   competence/capability  cannot  be  assessed  by   simply  aggregating  individual  competencies.   Organisational  capability,  and  therefore   effectiveness,  can  only  be  assessed  by  looking  at  

3


June 2011  

how individuals  interact  and  collaborate  in   employing  their  individual  competence.      

-./+'"#+,"0')1)

therefore be  achieved  by  facilitating  a  tight   community  of  high  ‘change  agility’  staff.  

INNOVATION

-./+'"#+,"0')2)

The third  core  business  objective  identified  by   Davenport  and  Prusak  is  Innovation.   Organisations  can  be  effective  and  efficient,  but   without  renewing  its  product  or  services  portfolio,   its  longer-­‐term  success  will  be  questionable.     !"#$"%&"'()*%($"+&"#,) •  *+3()'435(.)06)#%($"+&"#,#)+'7)#+3()"'7"8"74+&)#9"&&)&(8(&#)+'7)(:%(."('$(;) •  <="$=)0./+'"#+,"0')=+#),=()#,.0'/(#,)$+%+5"&",>?)

Figure 2  -­‐  Organisational  competency/capability  

As illustrated  in  Figure  2,  traditional  top  down   competency  approaches  cannot  explicitly   differentiate  between  Organisation  A  and   Organisation  B.  The  following  map  provides  an   example  of  a  competency  map  that  identifies   discipline  clusters  for  a  major  petroleum   company.  Node  colours  indicate  different   competencies.  Densities  indicate  strength  of   capability  in  a  discipline.    

Figure  3  -­‐  Discipline/Capability  network  map  

Using SNA  techniques  we  can  choose  to  measure   the  connectedness  between  individuals  sharing   similar  disciplines,  however  we  choose  to  define   them.  Our  preference  is  to  identify  reciprocal   links  only  and  then  measure  the  density  of  the   resulting  discipline  based  clusters.     The  approach  can  be  used  in  concert  with  top   down  techniques  by  measuring  the   connectedness  of  individuals  who  share  top  down   identified  competencies.  For  example,  if  an   organisation  is  going  through  a  major  transition  it   might  like  to  know  how  well  connected  staff   rated  with  high  ‘change  agility’  in  a  Lominger   survey  are.  Improved  effectiveness  could   www.optimice.com.au  

Output measures  of  innovation  are  typically   couched  in  terms  of  the  level  of  successful  new   products  or  services  launched.  Traditional  top   down  approaches  to  innovation  employ  the  ‘idea   funnel’,  where  by  ideas  are  solicited  from  staff,  or   research  is  conducted  by  the  R&D  division.   Management  ‘gates’  are  established  to  qualify   ideas  as  they  are  developed  over  time.  New   products  or  services  are  ideas  that  survive  the   review  gates  and  emerge  through  the  funnel  for   implementation.  The  process  is  largely  linear  and   levels  of  collaborative  development  typically  only   facilitated  through  senior  management.   The  limitation  of  this  traditional  approach  has   been  exposed  in  the  modern  economy  by  the   level  of  market  innovations  being  sourced  from   non-­‐traditional  sources.  Established   organisations  are  no  longer  relying  on  their   internal  R&D  facilities  as  their  major  source  of   innovations  and  are  now  actively  sourcing  new   ideas  and  developments  from  outside  their  firms.     This  Open  Innovation  approach  is  being  heralded   as  the  major  innovation  in  the  innovation  process   itself.  Open  Innovation  is  a  networked  approach   to  innovation.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that   SNA  has  a  role  to  play.  Traditional  innovation   approaches  place  line  management  in  the  role  of   innovation  facilitator.  The  research  of  Professor   Ron  Burt  from  the  University  of  Chicago  and   others  have  indicated  that  successful  innovations   are  more  regularly  facilitated  by  organisational   brokers  that  span  structural  holes  in  the   organisation.  We  have  built  our  own  model  for   innovation  based  on  networking  principles,  which   we  call  ’the  3E’s  of  innovation’:  

4


June 2011  

!"#$%"&'"())&*+,-&)"

senior line  management.  We  anticipated  that  in   the  traditional  organisation,  resources  for   implementation  are  still  facilitated  through  senior   management.  Therefore  effective  ‘engagers’   would  need  this  connection,  if  not  being  a   member  of  the  senior  management  team   themselves.  

Innovation 1.0 Research

Develop

Implement

Innovation 2.0 Explore Engage Exploit

!"#$%&'()*+%,--./"'0.-%1-"2*#0#%

Explore: Strength of Weak Ties Model

Figure 4  -­‐  Innovation  2.0  

The 3E’s  model  still  identifies  with  successful   innovations  travelling  through  an  explore  to   exploit  transition.  The  network  perspective   however  identifies  the  explore  and  exploit  phases   in  terms  of  ‘communities’.     The  ‘Engage’  phase  aligns  with  Burt’s  structural   holes  concept,  identifying  individuals  that   effectively  bridge  the  explore  and  exploit   communities.  In  conducting  an  SNA  in  the   context  of  innovation  management,  we  look  to   identify  the  Explore  and  Exploit  communities  and   the  brokers  or  bridges  that  connect  them.  With   the  explore  communities  we  apply  both   Granovetter’s  ‘strength  of  weak  ties’  concept    by   identifying  high  ‘betweenness’  nodes  in  the  weak   tie  network,  as  well  as  the  strong  tie  network  for   explicitly  identified  ‘ideas’  people.     The  exploit  community  identifies  the  community   of  individuals  who  are  identified  as  key   ‘implementation’  resources.  The  exploitation   community  was  also  represented  at  two  levels.   We  proposed  that  for  straightforward   implementations  it  would  be  suffice  to  simply   identify  the  community  of  identified   implementation  resources.  For  more  complex   implementations  however,  we  hypothesised  that   implementation  teams  would  need  to  be  bound   in  tighter  ‘trust  networks’  to  be  able  to  deal  with   the  added  complexity.  We  therefore  applied  the   reciprocal  link  filter  to  identify  the  high  trust   implementation  communities.     For  the  ‘Engage’  community  we  looked  for   brokers  connecting  the  explore  and  exploit   communities  who  were  also  well  connected  with   www.optimice.com.au  

Exploitation: Programmable Engage (with Executive)

Explore:

Communities Model

Exploitation: Complex

Figure 5  -­‐  3E's  of  innovation  case  study  

Figure 5  identifies  the  3E’s  application  for  a  UK   public  housing  organisation  of  some  1500   employees.  Key  participants  were  identified  as   potential  ‘change  facilitators’  for  the   implementation  of  an  open  innovation  software   implementation.  By  explicitly  recruiting  the   identified  change  agents  into  the  appropriate   phase  of  the  innovation  process,  we  anticipated   an  acceleration  in  the  innovation  process  overall.  

PLATFORM FOR  BRINGING  SNA   INTO  MAINSTREAM  BUSINESS   We  have  identified  how  selected  SNA  techniques   can  be  framed  to  address  the  limitations  of   traditional  top  down  business  improvement   methods  aimed  at  the  core  organisational   objectives  of  efficiency,  effectiveness  and   innovation.     It  is  now  time  to  bring  it  all  together  into  a  suite  of   limited  SNA  techniques  that  can  be  simply   communicated  to  business  practitioners  for  their   employment.  We  are  not  arrogant  enough  to   suggest  that  these  are  the  only,  or  best  SNA   techniques  for  addressing  the  core  organisational   objectives.     We  do  however  believe  that  for  the  platform  of   SNA  tools  to  be  effectively  adopted  by   5  


June 2011  

mainstream business,  they  must  be  comparable   to  ‘introductory  level’  six  sigma,  lean   manufacturing  or  TQM  methods  to  effectively   engage  the  business  advisor  community.  We  put   our  initial  set  here  for  on-­‐going  development:  

discussion on  how  this  starting  point  can  be   continuously  developed  to  address  current  poor   adoption  rates  by  mainstream  business.  

     

Figure  6  -­‐  Performance  Improvement  Platform  -­‐  Network   Perspective  

The model  identified  in  Figure  6  summarises  our   approach  to  performance  improvement  using   SNA.  Efficiency  is  assessed  through  the   dependency  demand  balances  for  organisational   units.  Specific  SNA  measures  include  using   demand  (in-­‐degree)  balances  and  trust  (reciprocal   tie)  indices  between  organisational  units.     Effectiveness  is  predicated  on   competency/capability  and  its  alignment  with   strategic  directions.  The  densities  of  competency   clusters  are  measured  to  assess  the  degree  of   competence/capability  along  selected  discipline   lines.  The  degree  to  which  one  can  ‘read’  the   designed  business  processes  inside  the   organisational  network  maps  can  be  used  as  an   indicator  of  alignment.  Innovation  is  assessed   using  transitions  between  the  explore,  engage   and  exploit  communities.  Key  players  are   identified  in  the  different  networks  for   recruitment  as  ‘change  agents’  in  the  innovation   process.   Collectively  the  model  illustrated  in  Figure  6  is  our   proposition  as  to  how  SNA  can  achieve  ‘big  idea’   status  and  adoption  by  the  99.99%  of   management  consultants  and  business  advisors   who  currently  are  not  taking  advantage  of  its   undoubted  power  in  improving  organisational   performance.  We  look  forward  to  a  constructive   www.optimice.com.au  

                      6  


June 2011  

ABOUT THE  AUTHORS   Laurence  Lock  Lee  is  co-­‐founder  of  Optimice  Pty   Ltd,  a  firm  dedicated  to  helping  its  clients   optimise  their  business  relationships.  He  is  an   acknowledged  leading  practitioner  in  Social  and   Value  Network  Analysis  for  organisational   change.     He  has  over  35  years  of  working  experience  in   roles  ranging  from  research,  management  and   consulting.  He  has  consulted  widely  with  major   corporate  and  government  clients  and  presented   at  academic  and  industry  forums  in  Australia,   Europe,  Asia  and  the  USA.  Prior  to  co-­‐founding   Optimice,  he  was  a  Principal  Consultant  with   Computer  Sciences  Corporation  (CSC),  where  he   led  the  knowledge  and  information  management   consulting  practice  and  was  a  research  member   of  CSC's  global  leading  edge  forum.  Prior  to  that   he  worked  for  many  years  with  BHP  Billiton   within  their  corporate  research  laboratories,   leading  their  research  programs  on  knowledge   based  systems  and  artificial  intelligence.     Laurence  holds  PhD  from  the  University  of   Sydney,  his  research  being  on  corporate  social   capital  effects  on  share  market  performance.  He   is  the  author  of  “IT  Governance  in  a  Networked   World”  (IGI  Global)  and  “Social  Capital  and  Firm   Performance”  (VDM  Verlag).   Cai  Kjaer  is  Partner  and  Co-­‐founder  of  Optimice   Pty  Ltd.  Cai  has  been  the  driving  force  behind   www.onasurveys.com,  a  web-­‐based  survey  tool   helping  Organisational  Network  Analysis   professionals  collect  data  more  efficiently.     Cai  has  extensive  experience  in  both  consulting   and  implementation  of  projects  with  large   organisation.  Prior  to  co-­‐founding  Optimice,  he   was  a  Principal  Consultant  with  Computer   Sciences  Corporation  (CSC).    Cai  has  been  the   Principal  Consultant  for  large  scale  business   transformation  and  business  process  change   projects  responsible  for  getting  the  ‘human’  side   of  implementation  right.  Cai  has  extensive   experience  in  workshop  facilitation  at  senior  and   executive  organisational  levels.    

www.optimice.com.au

His work  experience  is  diverse  and  he  has  been   working  nationally  and  internationally  with  a   range  of  clients  from  government  agencies  to  the   world's  largest  resources  company.    His  expertise   has  been  recognised  with  a  series  of  invitations  to   present  at  industry  forums  and  conferences  in   Australia  and  abroad.  Cai  Kjaer  holds  a  Master  of   Law  from  University  of  Copenhagen.  

COMPANY BACKGROUND   Optimice  was  founded  with  the  objective  of   helping  clients  improve,  or  optimise  their   collaboration  and  personal  networking.  Our   mission  is  to  facilitate  improved  organisational   outcomes  through  the  development  of  excellent   business  relationships.   The  Optimice’s  partners  have  extensive   experience  in  researching,  analysing  and   facilitating  improved  business  relationships.   Using  our  backgrounds  in  Consulting,  Knowledge   Management  and  Collaboration  we  have   developed  approaches  and  techniques  that  are   targeted  at  improving  people  relationships  to   drive  better  business  results.   Optimice  has  developed  products  to  support  the   collection  and  visualisation  of  social  networks.   The  principals  have  conducted  network  analysis   projects  across  many  industry  sectors  in  Australia,   Europe  and  the  USA.  Our  SNA  survey  tool  (ONA   Surveys)  has  been  sold  around  the  world  and  is   one  of  the  leading  SNA  survey  tools  on  the   market.  Our  web  based  network  visualisation  tool   is  gaining  increasing  interest  from  our  clients.  Our   Partnership  Scorecard  uniquely  supports   organisations  in  developing  sustainable   relationships,  both  internally  and  externally.   Recently  Optimice  has  completed  the  packaging   of  its  tools  and  techniques  into  an  organisational   networking  analysis  platform,  which  is  now  being   opened  up  to  ‘leverage’  partners  in  the   management  consulting  and  business  advice   sector.  Visit  www.optimice.com.au/partners.php   for  more  information.

7


ABOUT OPTIMICE   Optimice  provides  specialised  consulting  services  to  help  organisations  map  and  improve  business   relationships  at  multiple  levels.  Optimice  identifies  relationship  patterns  between  people,  organisations  or   markets,  and  we  have  improved  the  basic  techniques  to  optimise  these  relationships  in  a  compelling   business-­‐focused  context.     Our  Partnership  Scorecard™  helps  organisations  manage  the  intangible  relationship  aspects  of   outsourcing,  smart  sourcing,  alliances,  joint-­‐ventures  and  similar  complex  business  frameworks.   Our  specialized  survey  tool  www.onasurveys.com  provides  consultants  and  other  practitioners  the  most   effective  and  user  friendly  tool  available  on  the  market  to  collect  data  on  business  relationships.   Optimice  Pty  Ltd.   23  Loquat  Valley  Rd   Bayview  NSW  2104   Phone  +612  8002  0035   Fax  +612  8213  6274   www.optimice.com.au   ABN  92  123  562  854  

0  

Bringing Social Network Analysis into Mainstream Business  

Relationship Patterns That Really Matter to Business. The key achievement for business methods such as Six Sigma, LEAN and The Balanced Sco...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you