Jon Udell writes about the value of overlapping scopes in networks of people, and the particular value of individuals who are able to bridge scopes.
If I am seeking or sharing information, why do I need to be able to address a group of 3 (my team), or 300 (my company), or 300,000 (my company's customers), or 300 million (the Usenet)? At each level I encounter a group that is larger and more diffuse. Moving up the ladder I trade off tight affinity with the concerns of my department, or my company, for access to larger hive-minds. But there doesn't really have to be a tradeoff, because these realms aren't mutually exclusive. You can, and often should, operate at many levels. [Practical Internet Groupware]
This suggests another layer in Ross Mayfield's network valuation.
The value of a network isn't just in its size, and the number of potential groups.
The value of a network is also in the connections among the different groups.
I wonder if there are optimal values?
* Too tightly coupled, and there is groupthink, with little diversity and innovation.
* Too loosely coupled, and it is more difficult or impossible for the group to behave in an emergent fashion --to reach agreement, to co-ordinate action, to swarm around a big idea,
The cool thing is, with networked media like weblogs and wikis, it should be possible to experiment and measure.
Posted by alevin at April 10, 2003 09:40 AM | TrackBackOr perhaps an optimal *range*? Or a range of higher probability of effective coordinated action?
I get edgy when people ascribe particular importance to a distinct threshhold (sometimes to the point of anthropomorphizing the quantity: “the 150 plateau inhibited further community growth”) — not because I doubt that size matters, but because focusing intently on a determined figure risks distracting us from the actual goings-on in the group.
I’m not accusing you yourself. Indeed, I raise the question here because I expect that here, one can explore the richer questions of group size and effectiveness, task, communication medium, and so on.
Posted by: AKMA on April 10, 2003 09:59 AMI am not sure this suggests another layer, as Jon's customers and usenet represent groups that are published towards.
Building upon your points:
If Too Tightly Coupled: Network growth and Inflow of new ideas is restricted.
If Too Loosely Coupled: The group fragments
AKMA makes a good point, but I have to stand by the need to find generalized differences to focus richer questions. These are ranges and not absolutes for how groups will or should form. A group of 300 dissapates potential energy because not everyone can know everyone...but if a group is a static 150 it lacks inflow of new ideas.
What's also interesting is that as soon as limits are revealed people seek to surpass them.
Posted by: Ross Mayfield on April 10, 2003 10:51 AMRoss,
The new layer isn't the groups themselves. It's the level of coupling among the groups.
- Adina
Posted by: Adina Levin on April 10, 2003 10:54 AM