Business Development: Utilizing Social Networks and Network Weaving

Social networks are recognized as one of the crucial factors contributing to success in careers and/or entrepreneurship. Globally competitive entrepreneurs rely on their social network of weak ties i.e. people they interact with rather infrequently, to access information and learn about new opportunities. Entrepreneurs with extensive weak ties in their network identify significantly more opportunities than an entrepreneur with a smaller network.

Unfortunately, many entrepreneurs have a limited number of weak ties and a large network of strong ties (strong ties refer to close friends and family). An individual with a few weak ties has limited access to information from distant parts of the social system and generally a myopic view of the world as seen via the strong tiesAlso, entrepreneurs build relationships with organizations and individuals that are a part of their social network as they frequently interact with them and have developed a relationship of mutual trust, shared values and beliefs, self limiting the kind and number of opportunities they could access with a broader network.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is the study of interaction among these social actors. Social actors can be human individuals, organizations, companies, and even animals like bees or ants! Actors can also be in some cases cities, states, nations or groups.  SNA deals with understanding how social ties work and how they influence and affect the involved network participants. Examining social ties helps to understand the linkages that exist, reveal the gaps and also point to connectors in a given network.

Proactive network weaving, a deliberate process of bridging and connecting to extend one’s social network of weak ties, can close network holes by finding missed or overlooked opportunities and create new and richer connections between and among people, groups and entities in networks.

Network weaving is a term coined by June Holley to describe the act of deliberately connecting others in an effort to strengthen social ties. Network weaving is the process of building community and strengthening social capital in a community by bringing together and connecting better the actors in a social network. A Network weaver by definition refers to “a person who takes responsibility for making networks healthier; do so by connecting people, coordinating self-organized projects, facilitating networks, and being a network guardian”.

A successful network weaving approach uses social network maps to look at networks that exist, the ties they form, look for potential network weavers and engage local stakeholders by connecting previously disconnected actors, scouting for new opportunities and working together as a group for better outcomes and encourage new relationships and collaborations.

AMI’s work through the Kansas Opportunity Innovation Network (KOIN) aims to weave such networks that can fill the holes in the social structure for unconnected companies, communities and regions. Any individual or an organization serving as a network weaver or an intermediary can help entrepreneurs benefit in a number of ways.

A network weaver/intermediary can assist business development by connecting the unconnected to new markets and unexplored opportunities.  Since network weavers/intermediaries can look at and into different groups at the same time, ideas, techniques, practices from one group can be applied to problems faced by another. Network weavers/intermediaries can also innovate by synthesizing and combining different ideas taken from more than one group.  The primary job of a network weaver/intermediary in a fragmented network is to build capacity to more systematically scout for opportunities and link them to the right partners at the right time. Doing this will help entrepreneurs/businesses look beyond their immediate market or region, collaborate with partners in other markets, and promote unique boundary-spanning innovation opportunities.

We all connect to others every day in our businesses and organizations. Network weaving can help in building trust among the network participants involved. Increased trust among actors (businesses) facilitates greater collaboration resulting in increased exposure to new markets, business opportunities, contacts and product development for businesses. Business growth and development occur where great ideas intersect with opportunity.  Why leave that process up to chance? Actively knit your next great business opportunity together, before someone else does!

The Power of Networks

As soon as the term social network is heard, Facebook is what most of us think of, but it’s much more than just Facebook. Although Facebook has now become synonymous with social networking, an individual’s social network is the sum total of friends and acquaintances, people that may be called upon for information and guidance. In social sciences, a social network is defined as, “Individuals or groups linked by some common bond, shared social status, similar or shared functions, or geographic or cultural connection. Social networks form and discontinue on an ad hoc basis depending on specific need and interest.” (Barker, 1999) The people in an individual’s closer circle, such as family and close friends, are referred to as strong ties. Contacts in the outer circle, or acquaintances that are not in touch regularly, are referred to as weak ties.

 

Social networks are beginning to be recognized as one of the crucial factors contributing to success in career or entrepreneurship (García-Cabrera & García-Soto, 2009) (Granovetter, The Strength of Weak Ties, 1973). Globally competitive entrepreneurs rely on their social network of weak ties to access information and learn about new opportunities (Granovetter, 1973). Entrepreneurs with extensive weak ties in their network identify significantly more opportunities than an entrepreneur with a smaller network (Chea, 2008).

 

Unfortunately, many entrepreneurs have a limited number of weak ties and a large network of strong ties. An individual with a few weak ties has limited access to information from distant parts of the social system and generally a myopic view of the world as seen via the strong ties(Granovetter, The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited, 1983)Also, entrepreneurs build relationships with organizations and individuals that are a part of their social network as they frequently interact with them and have developed a relationship of mutual trust, shared values and beliefs, self limiting the kind and number of opportunities they could access with a broader network (Tracey & Clark, 2003) (García-Cabrera & García-Soto, 2009).

Since many small rural entrepreneurs have a limited number of weak ties, that leads to structural holes in their exposure to market needs and opportunities. To expose entrepreneurs to more opportunities, the unconnected need to be connected by filling in the structural holes (Burt, 1992). Proactive network weaving, a deliberate process of bridging and connecting to extend one’s social network of weak ties, can close these structural holes. Network weaving creates new and richer connections between and among people, groups and entities in networks and helps participants to constantly learn about the assets and opportunities in and outside the network (Ricchiuto, 2009).

AMI’s Kansas Opportunity Innovation Network aims to weave such a network that would fill the structural holes for unconnected companies, communities and regions. This will be done by building the capacity to more systematically scout for opportunities and link them to the right partners at the right time. Doing this will help our clients look beyond their immediate market or region and collaborate with partners in other markets and promote unique, boundary-spanning innovation opportunities.

KOIN is being set up to act as an opportunity catalyst, boundary spanner and connector for Kansas companies, communities and regions wishing to compete in regional, national and global markets with innovative technology-based goods and services. The network will specifically focus on:

1) Profiling the innovation competencies, assets, capabilities and needs of regions, communities and their local companies.

2) Developing the ability to scout new opportunities, especially global opportunities, outside existing markets where center clients may have little to no connection access.

3) Creating an actively woven network of resources (technology, expertise, capital, etc.) and potential business partners that possess complimentary competencies who can enable center clients to respond in a competitive manner.

4) Facilitating the ability to readily connect and combine opportunities and other companies, communities and regions in innovative ways so that the response is greater than the sum of its respective parts.

Stay tuned for more information as we continue our projects in economic development, launch new services and advance the KOIN network.

Bibliography:

Barker, R. L. (1999). The social work dictionary. Washington DC: NASW Press.

Bendis, R. A., Seline, R. S., & Byler, E. J. (2007). A new direction for technology-based economic development: The role of innovation intermediaries. Applied Research in Economic Development, 4(1), 22-36.

Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition (Vol. i). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Chea, A. C. (2008). Entrepreneurial Venture Creation: The Application of Pattern Identification Theory to the Entrepreneurial Opportunity-Identification Process.International Journal of Business Management, 3(2), 37-53.

Drabenstott, M. (2008). Universities, Innovation and Regional Development: A View from the United States. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(2), 43-55.

García-Cabrera, A. M., & García-Soto, M. G. (2009). A Dynamic Model of Technology-based Opportunity Recognition. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 167-190.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973, May). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

Ricchiuto, J. (2009). The power of network weaving. Retrieved fromhttp://networkweaver.blogspot.com/2009/08/power-of-network-weaving.html

Tracey, P., & Clark, G. L. (2003). Alliances, Networks and Competitive Strategy: Rethinking Clusters of Innovation. Growth and Change, 34(1), 1-16.

Visser, E.-J., & Atzema, O. (2008, October). With or without clusters: Facilitating innovation through a differentiated and combined network approach. European Planning Studies, 16(9), 1169-1188.

Yang, C.-H., Chen, C.-J., & Shyu, J. Z. (2008). Innovation Intermediary for Creating Regional Knowledge Capabilites in Knowledge Cluster. Proceedings of the IEEE IEEM.

Is Rural Development a Wicked Problem?

We have talking about wicked problems here a lot lately and in our discussions surrounding rural development it always become obvious that rural development is a wicked problem. Here are some initial thoughts of why rural development classifies as wicked problem and some of then characters that rightly classify it as wicked problem.

Rural Development as a Wicked Problem

A new way to Profile Businesses – Based on Competencies

As a part of our work in the North Central Region, we have been thinking about a new way to categorize businesses apart from the traditional industry based classification or cluster based categorizations.  In our work, we have found that clusters don’t exist in rural regions, because of the lack of critical mass required to define a cluster. But that doesn’t mean that the businesses in small rural regions cannot innovate or collaborate if they don’t belong to one cluster. Here are some initial thoughts on how to profile businesses based on their competency and help them collaborate to innovate.

Business Profiling

Harvesting more than Metaphors from the Business Ecosystem

There is recognition of ecosystem as a metaphor for the economy and the interworking of entities in that economy. We use terms like grow and harvest to talk about profits, terms like fertile to talk about markets and even fairly recently we added the term Economic Gardening as an activity to be conducted by economic development agents. To be fair, economic gardening is more than a simple metaphor to describe an existing set of activities, it is an enlightened way to grow a local economy by helping local companies.

Hidden in plain sight behind the metaphors is the biomimic reality of the business ecosystem.

Considering the depth of the ecosystem metaphor can expose more rational ways to look at helping a local economy.

Old-growth Business

For example, if one is to consider existing businesses as old growth trees, their value in the economy becomes a little clearer. Old-Growth businesses (stage 3 and 4 as well as some mature stage 2 in the terminology of the Lowe foundation) are the large businesses that succeed or fail independent of the local economy. What is less recognized is how they can provide the shade and the habitat that makes it possible for new businesses to succeed.

Sometimes new businesses grow like sprigs maintaining the genetic code of the senior business and often fighting for the same resources. Others still, grow in the shade of the old growth companies, using the microclimate created under the canopy, the trained workforce or the focused infrastructure. The examples where other smaller entities actually help the old-growth elements are more subtle and harder to identify like the pollination by insects or the way a sapsucker may help defend a tree from insect attack .

So what is the role for an economic development agent in a business ecosystem? It is suggested that the agent may act as a gardener, yet we do not want our local agents planting and weeding businesses by their own whim. Nor do we want the economic development agent to act as a tree surgeon, diagnosing and treating private companies. It would also be unfair to evaluate the agent on these expectations for in most cases the larger environment and the business’ internal factors will have more influence on the health of the old-growth companies than any single agent’s intervention.

What might be the most valuable position for the conscious actors in this ecosystem is as planner, landscape architect and horticulturalist (a planitectrculturalist?), helping identify the microclimates in around the old growth companies that will create synergistic opportunities and the cases where seedlings will grow.

What we are describing is a mode of operating somewhere between terraforming and gardening. This is the mode in which an economic development agent must work by understanding the specific environmental conditions and helping craft a landscape that fosters diversity and synergy while watching out for weak branches and keeping an eye out for chances to pollinate new ideas.

What is a Clusterburst

One of the goals of the AMI University Center is developing visualizations that help people understand the business and economic climate in a region. One particularly frustrating issue is how to compare multivariate data across multiple areas against a standard. Numerically we use location quotient to show how a value for one area compares to another. Location quotient is simply the ratio of a given normalized measure in one area versus the same normalized measure in another area.

This a simple calculation lets you see the potential importance of an industry (or any value) to a region. There becomes a bit of a problem however when we have to compare, as in our case, over 20 industries simultaneously over geography and time. In our little study of the North central Kansas with 23 clusters and sub-clusters over 19 counties that results in 437 data points for every year, for the entire state of Kansas- 2,415.

We needed to devise a way to show this data on a map that would allow a user to visually compare LQ data across the region. We were (and are) using Google Earth as the geospatial visualization tool, and we owe a small portion of the development of the clusterburst quirkiness of the Google Earth visual overlay capabilities, and a large portion to the openness of the KML file format. We developed first simple spreadsheets that would write the text files in the KML format that would display our data on a user’s computer.

While unknown to the developers originally the Clusterburst chart is a modification of the Nightingale Rose charthttp://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/2008/01/nightingales-rose/. The chart is also similar to a Radar Chart,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_chart. While the Clusterburst resembles in a manner a simple pie chart the angles of the wedges remain constant and the scale of each wedge grows or shrinks in size to represent the value. We include a line circle that equals an LQ of one. 

We feel this visualization best shows two issues that are important for regional economic development. It shows the most clearly the values that represent a LQ greater than one and secondly the irregularity shows the comparative concentration or imbalance of a region’s economy.

 

The two charts represent two different counties in the state of Kansas, one is a diversified county other is dominated by a single industry.

We developed a small program that transforms the data in our database into the KML file used by Google Earth. By using Google Earth we were then allowed to add more layers of information. In the video displayed below we have added markers for the local businesses in the cluster. This lets a viewer see if a particular cluster is dominated by one large business or by many smaller businesses. Additionally by using the third dimension we can show the absolute number of employees as a function of elevation.

For the embedded version visit the original project site at http://ami.ncrpc.org/?p=701

BTW with just the slightest bit of encouragement and credit we will share the process we used to develop the actual charts.  Just drop a comment