5 responses

  1. Bill Casey
    January 9, 2012

    Jesse, I’ve done a little work in SNA, and what you have here is a SUPERB summary. Thank you for this clear, concise and comprehensive piece! This is an under-utilized technology.

    • Jesse Jacoby
      Jesse Jacoby
      January 10, 2012

      Bill,
      Thanks for stopping and for weighing in on the topic. I’ve had some clients comment that SNA/ONA is “overkill” or “too rigorous” for their needs. I think it makes sense if the project is big enough (i.e., a large enough # of stakeholder impacted). I’d be curious to know what level of receptivity/enthusiasm for SNA your clients have expressed.
      -J

  2. Bill Casey
    January 10, 2012

    Well, it’s a sad story, Jesse. My client uses SNA rigorously on their competition; I recommended they use it on themselves (large, siloed organization) and the idea grew legs for a while, but they ultimately decided it would be too intrusive (we had planned to use intra-organization emails).

    Internally, they have been accused of “not connecting the dots,” and their usual prescription for that malady is to move one manager over multiple functions, which usually has had only marginal success. SNA offered a potential dependent measure to gauge the effectiveness of a spectrum independent variables. Pity.

    BTW, in regard to its being “overkill,” we found that there was absolutely a continuum SNA approaches that produced a continuum of data fidelity (and effort), from quick & dirty, to painfully precise & academic. It doesn’t have to be a science project.

    • Jesse Jacoby
      Jesse Jacoby
      January 10, 2012

      Much appreciate the additional color commentary! It’s encouraging to hear that SNA/ONA doesn’t always need to be a laborious effort with scientific-level analytics. I find many organizations and leaders prefer the more pragmatic approach (vs. the perception of an over-engineered solution), so this is good news. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop