The Sustainable Network Model
As 9 out of 10 networks fail, including social networks, virtual communities and business clusters, I decided to start developing some "Sustainable Network Model" techniques to predict if a network has the necessary ingredients before huge amounts of effort are expended in vain.
Photo: Rubik's cube
I am thinking primarily about networks which are voluntary and self-sustaining rather than networks which are mandatory for participants as a result of their business or profession.
In a previous article, Design better social software using Living Systems Theory, I looked at networks as living biological systems and the 4 key components which need to be in place for them to thrive.
In this article I present a short introduction on how you can assess the viability and sustainability of a network from a human communications and interactions viewpoint:
There are 3 basic types of dialogues humans have with each other:
1. TCB (Taking Care of Business) - getting things done
2. Grooming - Nurturing relationships through trivia and small talk
3. Emoting - Sharing how we feel - good and bad
Proposition#1: A viable network needs to have all 3 types of dialogue present. There may be a dominant dialog but the other two must also be present to certain minimum levels if the network is to be self-sustaining.
Network participation is a group activity - not just a one to one thing - it seems to me that there are 3 ways we can encounter others as we have our network dialogues:
a. 1:1 (one to one) - a two party conversation
b. 1:M (one to many) - one person is talking to a group
c. M:M (many to many) - a group where all members are talking with each other
Proposition#2: A viable network needs to have all 3 types of encounter present. There may be a dominant type of encounter but the other two must also be present to certain minimum levels if the network is to be self-sustaining.
There are 3 main channels we can use for these dialogues:
x. Speech - over the phone or face to face
y. eMail/Web - any form of asynchronous communications
z. Messaging - any form of real-time communications via web or mobile phone
Proposition#3: Some channels are better for some dialogs than others and some are better for some encounters than others. However if all the Dialogs and Encounters need to be present to some degree then this implies all the channels also need to be present to some degree.
A 3-Dimensional Network Sustainability Model
So if you put all this together you get a 3-dimensional view of a potential network as shown in the Rubik's cube at the top of the article.
To make things easier we can start by looking at any network as a simple matrix and creating a Network Heatmap for it, for example:
To illustrate this lets look at a few very simple 'caricature' examples:
- Voluntary Professional Networks
These networks often fixate on the TCB Dialog with no room for Grooming or Emoting - in fact these latter two dialogs might be positively banned or frowned upon.
- Web-only Networks
Networks which only use the eMail/Web channel but don't allow Speech or Mobile Messaging make it very hard for their members to Groom or Emote.
- I-centric Networks
These networks present the rest of the community mainly as a resource which I can draw upon. Thus they support 1:1 and 1:M encounters but neglecting the M:M encounters which can be great for building group relationships.
Viewing a proposed network using the 3 dimensions of communications can be a powerful way to spot and fix obstacles and problems to sustainability before the network gets off the ground. What you are really looking for is a SUN (Sustainable Unified Network)!
In a future article I will examine network sustainability from other perspectives such as the extent of 'Face to face' (F2F) and unifying force (e.g. money, relationships or advancement).
Bioteams Books Reviews
We are bombarded with the idea its good to talk and its good to text. But is texting and other forms of mobile phone interaction a useful form of communication? Or is it even a form of communication at all or something totally different? In a mini-book "Heidegger, Habermas and the mobile phone" the author invokes some key thinkers of the twentieth century to offer an essential alternative to the new doctrine of 'm-communication': Martin Heidegger, who saw humanity as ‘the entity which talks’ and Jürgen Habermas, current-day advocate of authentic communication.