Academic Room is an online platform that was developed at Harvard University to facilitate interdisciplinary engagements among scholars and researchers around the world. Our mission is to curate and disseminate scholarly resources, which are organized in over 10,000 academic sub-disciplines. 

We share the conviction that easy and unimpeded ability to obtain quality educational resources should be a right and not a privilege. The platform allows academics, researchers and students to create highly specialized portals for their subfields. These portals can be enriched with professional directories, scholar profiles, video lectures, bibliographies, journal articles, books, reviews, images, ancient manuscripts and audio recordings.

You are invited to participate in our pilot launch. Please register at and also encourage students, teachers and researchers within your institution to join. Together, we can make a real difference.

Best wishes,

Academic Room Editors
Academic Room
184 Green Street
Suite 1
Cambridge, MA 02139

The New Era of Networked Science

In Reinventing Discovery, Michael Nielsen argues that we are living at the dawn of the most dramatic change in science in more than 300 years. This change is being driven by powerful new cognitive tools, enabled by the internet, which are greatly accelerating scientific discovery. There are many books about how the internet is changing business or the workplace or government. But this is the first book about something much more fundamental: how the internet is transforming the nature of our collective intelligence and how we understand the world.

Reinventing Discovery tells the exciting story of an unprecedented new era of networked science. We learn, for example, how mathematicians in the Polymath Project are spontaneously coming together to collaborate online, tackling and rapidly demolishing previously unsolved problems. We learn how 250,000 amateur astronomers are working together in a project called Galaxy Zoo to understand the large-scale structure of the Universe, and how they are making astonishing discoveries, including an entirely new kind of galaxy. These efforts are just a small part of the larger story told in this book--the story of how scientists are using the internet to dramatically expand our problem-solving ability and increase our combined brainpower.

This is a book for anyone who wants to understand how the online world is revolutionizing scientific discovery today--and why the revolution is just beginning.

Michael Nielsen is one of the pioneers of quantum computing. He is an essayist, speaker, and advocate of open science.

Reviews

"[A] thought-provoking call to arms. . . . Reinventing Discovery will frame serious discussion and inspire wild, disruptive ideas for the next decade."--Chris Lintott, Nature

"Presenting complex ideas clearly, Nielson explores in his first book how online collaborative tools, networked science, and open data policies are revolutionizing the process of discovery. He presents a clear vision of science's future and challenges us to bring it to fruition. . . . Both captivating and enlightening, this book is recommended for general readers or specialists interested in how online collaboration tools, open data policies, and networked science might benefit the future of science and humanity."--Jonathan Bodnar, Library Journal

"In writing this book, Nielsen has created perhaps the most compelling and comprehensive case so far for a new approach to science in the Internet age . . . eloquent, thought-provoking and inspiring to read."--Timo Hannay, Nature Physics

"Reinventing Discovery is a survey, an analysis, a how-to, and a harbinger of greater things to come. Kudos to the author for picking a timely and relevant subject perhaps just on the edge of social consciousness and making a great story out of it."--Robert Schaefer, New York Journal of Books

"[Reinventing Discovery] opens with a fantastic account of what we can learn about the future of science from explorations such as the Polymath Project and 'the greatest chess game in history,' Kasparov vs. the World. But what really distinguishes it is its nuanced, intelligent descriptions of just how these projects work, noticing what is important about them in a way that few popular summaries do. . . . Highly recommended!"--Tim O'Reilly, Founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media

"In Reinventing Discovery [Nielsen] has provided the most compelling manifesto yet for the transformative power of networked science."--James Wilsdon, Financial Times

Table of Contents

Chapter 1:Reinventing Discovery 1

PART 1: AMPLIFYING COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE 13
Chapter 2: Online Tools Make Us Smarter 15
Chapter 3: Restructuring Expert Attention 22
Chapter 4: Patterns of Online Collaboration 44
Chapter 5: The Limits and the Potential of Collective Intelligence 69

PART 2: NETWORKED SCIENCE 89
Chapter 6: All the World's Knowledge 91
Chapter 7: Democratizing Science 129
Chapter 8: The Challenge of Doing Science in the Open 172
Chapter 9: The Open Science Imperative 187

Appendix: The Problem Solved by the Polymath Project 209
Acknowledgments 215
Selected Sources and Suggestions for Further Reading 217
Notes 221
References 239
Index 255

- Princeton University Press 

Who Decides?

On January 12, ICANN will launch the largest domain name expansion since the creation of the Internet. Rod Beckstrom, CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will discuss this global achievement, ICANN's multi-stakeholder model that made it possible, and the rapid internationalization of the Internet.

The Future of the Internet - Who Decides?
Tuesday, Jan 10, 2012 | 3:00 pm - 4:30pm

ICANN is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet’s unique identifiers. 

Please RSVP to ktimlin@csis.org.

Please share this invite.

Marc Andreessen: Predictions for 2012 (and beyond), CNET

5 gadget predictions for 2012, ComputerWeekly

The World in 2012 Festival predicts the future ahead, The Economist

Gartner Predicts 2012, Gartner, Inc.

Five predictions for the communications world in 2012, The Guardian

Worldwide System Infrastructure Software 2012 Top 10 Predictions, IDC

Security Predictions for 2012, InfoWorld

6 Crazy Tech Predictions for 2012, Mashable

12 predictions for 2012, NESTA (National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts)

Smart Guide 2012: 10 ideas you’ll want to understand, New Scientist

Five big data predictions for 2012, O’Reilly Radar

Tech highlights of 2011. Predictions for 2012, Smarter Computing Blog

The Definitive Guide To HTML5: 14 Predictions For 2012, TechCrunch

Predictions for 2012: economic recovery, The Telegraph

Four Personal Finance Technology Trends for 2012, Time Techland

Top 10 forecasts for 2012, World Future Society

Ten Game-Changers for 2012, Cap Gemini

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/

Articles on social networks in organizations. It was prepared by Sargam Garg, PhD Student, Rutgers University with the help of socnet.

Daniel J. Brass, Joseph Galaskiewicz, Henrich R. Greve and Wenpin Tsai. "Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective." http://www.jstor.org/pss/20159624

Keith G. Provan, Amy Fish, and Joerg Sydow. "Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks." http://jom.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479.short

Stephen Borgatti & Pacey Foster. “The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology.”http://jom.sagepub.com/content/29/6/991.short

Nancy Katz, David Lazer, Holly Arrow, Noshir Contractor. "Network Theory and Small Groups" http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/35/3/307.short

Duncan Watts. "The 'new' science of networks." http://www.jstor.org/pss/29737693

Stephen Borgatti & Daniel Halgin. "On Network Theory." http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/content/22/5/1168.abstract

Menchik, D., and D. Meltzer. (2010) “The Retrieval of Scientific Findings and Attainment of Esteem in Physician Networks.” The Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51:2 pp. 37-52.

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 2003, Designing Stress Resistant Organizations: Computational Theorizing and Crisis Applications, Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Michael J. Prietula, Kathleen M. Carley and Les Gasser (Eds.), 1998, Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press / The MIT Press.

Michael E. Bales, Stephen B. Johnson, Jonathan W. Keeling, Kathleen M. Carley, Frank Kunkel, and Jacqueline A. Merrill, 2011, "Evolution of Coauthorship in Public Health Systems and Services Research," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41.1: 112-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.018

Judith A. Effken, Barbara B. Brewer, Melanie D. Logue, Sheila M. Gephart, and Joyce A. Verran, 2011, “Using Cognitive Work Analysis to Fit Decision Support Tools to Nurse Managers’ Work Flow,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80.10: 698-707. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.07.003

Judith A. Effken, Kathleen M. Carley, Sheila Gephart, Joyce A. Verran, Denise Bianchi, Jeff Reminga and Barbara B. Brewer, 2011, "Using ORA to Explore the Relationship of Nursing Unit Communication to Patient Safety and Quality Outcomes," International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80.7: 507-517. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.03.015

Judith Gelernter and Kathleen M. Carley, Forthcoming 2011, “Spatiotemporal network analysis and visualization,” International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research (IJAGR), special issue.

Matthias Meyer, Michael A. Zaggl, and Kathleen M. Carley, 2011, "Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development," Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 17.1: 1-34. DOI: 10.1007/s10588-010-9076-0

Jacqueline Merrill, Jonathan W. Keeling, Kathleen M. Carley, 2010, “A comparative study of 11 local health department organizational networks,” Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 2010; 16.6:564-76. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/jphmp/Abstract/2010/11000/A_Comparative_Study_of_11_Local_Health_Department.12.aspx

Patrick Wagstrom, James D. Herbsleb, and Kathleen M. Carley, 2010, “Communication, Team Performance, and the Individual: Bridging Technical Dependencies,” Academy of Management Conference, Montreal, Canada, August 2010. Best Paper Award.

Jacqueline Merrill, Michael Caldwell, Maxine L Rockoff, Kristine Gebbie, Kathleen M. Carley and Suzanne Bakken, 2008, “Findings from an organizational network analysis to support local public health management,” Journal of Public Urban Health, 85.4: 572-584. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/6l3k7446u8886452/.

Carter T. Butts and Kathleen M. Carley, 2007, “Structural Change and Homeostasis in Organizations: A Decision-Theoretic Approach”, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 31.4: 295 - 321. DOI: 10.1080/00222500701542517

Michael Ashworth and Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “Who you know vs. what you know: The impact of social position and knowledge on team performance,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 30.1: 43-75. DOI: 10.1080/00222500500323101

Marcelo Cataldo, Patrick Wagstrom, James Herbsleb and Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, "Identification of Coordination Requirements: Implications for the design of collaboration and awareness tools", Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp. 353 - 362. Available from: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1190000/1180929/p353-cataldo.pdf?key1=1180929&key2=6491909811&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=34171964&CFTOKEN=77758590. Best Paper CSCW 2006, Awarded by ACM SIGCHI.

Zhiang Lin, Xia Zhao, Kiran Ismail and Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “Organizational Design and Restructuring in Response to Crises: Lessons from Computational Modeling and Real World Cases,” Organizational Science, 17.5: 598-618. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0210

Jacqueline Merrill, Suzanne Bakken, Maxine Rockoff, Kristine Gebbie, Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “Description of a method to support public health information management: Organizational network analysis,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 40.4: 422 - 428. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2006.09.004

Il-Chul Moon and Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “Estimating the near-term changes of an organization with simulations,” In proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium, pp 111-118, Arlington, VA, Oct 12-15, 2006.

Yuqing Ren and Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “The Contingent Effects of Transactive Memory: When Is It More Beneficial to Know What Others Know?,” Management Science, 52.5:671-682. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0496

Craig Schreiber and Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “Leadership style as an enabler of organizational complex functioning,” E:CO Issue 8.4: 45-60. Available from: http://emergentpublications.com/ECO/issue_contents.aspx?Volume=8&Issue=4 & Reprinted in Complex Systems Leadership Theory, edited by Hazy, J. K., Goldstein, J. A. & Lichtenstein, B. B. (Eds.) Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishers, Ch. 6: 227 – 246.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2005, “Organizational Design and Assessment in Cyberspace,” in Organizational simulation William B. Rouse, Kenneth R. Boff (Eds.), John Wiley Sons Inc., Hoboken New Jersey.

Jana Diesner, Terrill Frantz and Kathleen M. Carley, 2005, “Communication Networks from the Enron Email Corpus: It's Always About the People. Enron is no Different,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 11.3: 201 – 228. DOI: 10.1007/s10588-005-5377-0

Judith A. Effken, Barbara B. Brewer, Anita Patil, Gerri S. Lamb, Joyce A. Verran and Kathleen M. Carley, 2005, “Using OrgAhead, a computational modeling program, to improve patient care unit safety and quality outcomes,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, 74.7-8:605-613. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.02.003

Manju K. Ahuja, Dennis F. Galletta and Kathleen M. Carley, 2003, ‘‘Individual Centrality and Performance in Virtual R&D Groups: An Empirical Study,” Management Science, 49.1:21-38, DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.49.1.21.12756

Kathleen M. Carley, 2003, “Computational Organizational Science and Organizational Engineering,” Simulation Modeling Practice and Theory, 10.5-7: 253-269. DOI: 10.1016/S1569-190X(02)00119-3

Judith A. Effken, Barbara B. Brewer, Anita Patil, Gerri S. Lamb, Joyce A. Verran and Kathleen M. Carley, 2003, “Using computational modeling to transform nursing data into actionable information,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36.4-5: 351-361. DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2003.09.018

Maksim Tsvetovat and Kathleen M. Carley, 2002, “Emergent Specializations in a Commodity Market: A Multi-Agent Model,” Journal of Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 8.3:221-234. DOI: 10.1023/A:1020719614091

Kathleen M. Carley, 2000, “Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems,” Organizational Science, 34.2: 4-10. Hakuto-Shobo Pub. Co., Tokyo Japan. ISSN 0286-9713, Printed in Japanese.

Ruth Cohen, Kathleen M. Carley, John R. Harrald and William A. Wallace, 2000, “Emotions in Crisis Management: An Analysis of Organizational Response to Two Natural Disasters.” International of Journal of Technology Management, Special Issue on Public Policy Engineering Management; Guest Editor G. Beroggi. 19.3-5: 313-335. DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2000.002817

Pamela Hinds, Kathleen M. Carley, David Krackhardt and Doug Wholey, 2000. “Choosing Workgroup Members: The Balance of Similarity, Competence and Familiarity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes. 81.2:226-251. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2875

Manju Ahuja and Kathleen M. Carley, 1999, “Network Structure in Virtual Organizations,” joint issue of Organization Science Nov/Dec 1999 and Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3/4 1998, Available from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/ahuja.html, published electronically.

Michael Prietula and Kathleen M. Carley, 1999, “Exploring the Effects of Agent Trust and Benevolence in a Simulated Organizational Task,” Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13.3: 321-338. DOI: 10.1080/088395199117441

Curtis M. Topper and Kathleen M. Carley, 1999, “A Structural Perspective on the Emergence of Network Organizations.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 24.1: 67-96. DOI: 10.1080/0022250X.1999.9990229

Kathleen M. Carley, Michael J. Prietula and Zhiang Lin, 1998, “Design versus Cognition: The Interaction of Agent Cognition and Organizational Design on Organizational Performance,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1.3:1-19. 30 June 1998. Available from: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/3/4.html

Kathleen M. Carley, 1998, “Organizational Adaptation,” Annals of Operations Research. 75: 25-47. DOI: 10.1023/A:1018963630536

Ruth Cohen, Laurie Waisel, Kathleen M. Carley and William A. Wallace, 1998, “The Pothole Lake Fire: An Analysis of Emotion in a Successful Emergency Response,” Safety Science, 30.1-2: 183-207. Special Issue on The International Emergency Management Society Conference, Guest Editor G. Beroggi. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-7535(98)00047-2

Kathleen M. Carley and John Harrald, 1997, “Organizational Learning Under Fire: Theory and Practice,” American Behavioral Scientist, 40.3: 310-332. DOI: 10.1177/0002764297040003007

Kathleen M. Carley and Zhiang Lin, 1997, “A Theoretical Study of Organizational Performance under Information Distortion,” Management Science, 43.7: 976-997. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.43.7.976

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 1997, “Organizational Decision Making and Error in a Dynamic Task Environment,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 22.2:125-150. DOI: 10.1080/0022250X.1997.9990198

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 1997, “Organizational Response: The Cost Performance Tradeoff,” Management Science. 43.2: 217-234. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.43.2.217

Kathleen M. Carley, 1996, “A Comparison of Artificial and Human Organizations,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 31.2:175-191. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00896-7

Kathleen M. Carley and David M. Svoboda, 1996, “Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process,” Sociological Methods and Research, 25.1: 138-168. DOI: 10.1177/0049124196025001005

Kathleen M. Carley, 1995, “Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory: Perspective and Directions,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1.1: 39-56. DOI: 10.1007/BF01307827

Kathleen M. Carley and Zhiang Lin, 1995, “Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance Under Stress,” IEEE - Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, 25.1: 221-230. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=00364841

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 1995, “DYCORP: A Computational Framework for Examining Organizational Performance Under Dynamic Conditions,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 20.2-3: 193-218. DOI: 10.1080/0022250X.1995.9990162

Mei Ye and Kathleen M. Carley, 1995, “Radar-Soar: Towards An Artificial Organization Composed of Intelligent Agents,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 20.2-3: 219-246. DOI: 10.1080/0022250X.1995.9990163

Kathleen M. Carley, 1994, “Sociology: Computational Organization Theory,” Social Science Computer Review, 12.4: 611-624. DOI: 10.1177/089443939401200410

Michael J. Prietula and Kathleen M. Carley, 1994, “Computational Organization Theory: Autonomous Agents and Emergent Behavior,” Journal of Organizational Computing, 41.1: 41-83. DOI: 10.1080/10919399409540216

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 1993, “Proactive or Reactive: An Analysis of the Effect of Agent Style on Organizational Decision Making Performance,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 2.4: 271-288.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1992, “Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover,” Organization Science, 3.1: 20-46. Reprinted in Organizational Learning, edited by Michael D. Cohen and Lee S. Sproull (Eds.), 1996, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.3.1.20

Kathleen M. Carley, 1991, “Designing Organizational Structures to Cope with Communication Breakdowns: A Simulation Model,” Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 5: 19-57.

Cathleen M. Stuetzer, Kathleen M. Carley, Thomas Koehler, and Gerhard Thiem, 2011, “The communication infrastructure during the learning process in web based collaborative learning systems,” In proceedings of the ACM WebSci’11, Koblenz, Germany, June 14-17, 2011, pp. 1-8.

Geoffrey P. Morgan and Kathleen M. Carley, 2011, "Exploring the impact of a stochastic hiring function in dynamic organizations," In proceedings of the Behavioral Representation in Modeling and Simulation (BRIMS) Conference, Sundance, UT, March 23, 2011, Pp. 106-113. Best Student Paper Award

Terrill L. Frantz and Kathleen M. Carley, 2010, "Post-Merger Knowledge Transfer: Examining Antecedent Structural Complexity," In proceedings of ICICKM 2010 The 7th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China, November 11-12, 2010, Pp. 190-199.

Kathleen. M. Carley and Terrill L. Frantz, 2009, “Modeling Organizational and Individual Decision Making.”     Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management, Edited by Andrew P. Sage & William B. Rouse (Eds.), New York: Wiley, Ch. 18: 723-762.

Kathleen M. Carley and Michael Prietula, 2009, “Gossip Matters: Destabilization of an organization by Injecting Suspicion.” Information Warfare and Organizational Decision Making, Edited by Alex Kott (Ed.), Artech, Boston, Ch. 7: 159-190.

Terrill L. Frantz and Kathleen. M. Carley, 2009, “Computationally Modeling the Effect of Organizational Complexity on Post-merger Integration,” Edited by Cary L. Cooper and Sydney Finkelstein (Eds.), Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, Oxford, UK: JAI Press, Ch. 8: 79-102.

Marcelo Cataldo, Jim D. Herbsleb and Kathleen M. Carley, 2008, “Socio-Technical Congruence: A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technical and Work Dependencies on Software Development Productivity,” In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, New York, NY: ACM, Pp. 2-11. ACM Distinguished Paper Award.

Craig Schreiber and Kathleen M. Carley, 2008, “Dynamic Network Leadership: Leading for Learning Adaptability,” Complexity Leadership Part I: Conceptual Foundations, edited by Mary Uhl-Bien and Russ Marion (Eds.), Ch. 11: 291-332, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Shawn A. Weil, Pacey Foster, Jared Freeman, Kathleen M. Carley, Jana Diesner, Terrill Frantz, Nancy J. Cooke, Steve Shope and James Gorman, 2008, “Converging approaches to automated communications-based assessment of team situation awareness,” Macrocognition in Teams, edited by Letsky, M., Warner, N., Fiore, S., & Smith, C., (Eds.), Ashgate: United Kingdom, Ch. 16: 277-304.

Craig Schreiber and Kathleen M. Carley, 2007, “Agent Interactions in Construct: An Empirical Validation using Calibrated Grounding,” In proceedings of 2007 BRIMS, Norfolk, VA, March 26-29, pp. 1 – 6, Available from: http://brimsconference.org/archives/2007/abstract/07-BRIMS-054.htm

Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “A Dynamic Network Approach to the Assessment of Terrorist Groups and The Impact of Alternative Courses of Action,” In Visualising Network Information. Meeting Proceedings RTO-MP-IST-063. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: RTO, 12 - 14. Available from: http://www.vistg.net/documents/IST063_PreProceedings.pdf.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2006, “Adattamento organizzativo e tecnologia: un modello computazionale,” Organizzazioni e Complessita. Edited by V. Albino, N. Carbonara, I. Giannoccaro (Eds.) Muoversi tra ordine e caos per affrontare il cambiamento,” Franco Angeli, Milano, Pp. 139-160.

Jana Diesner and Kathleen M. Carley, 2005, “Exploration of Communication Networks from the Enron Email Corpus,” In proceedings of the Workshop on Link Analysis, Counterterrorism and Security, SIAM International Conference on Data Mining 2005, Newport Beach, CA, April 23, Pp. 3-14.

Michael Ashworth and Kathleen M. Carley, 2004, “Toward Unified Organization Theory: Perspectives on the State of Computational Modeling,” In Proceedings of the NAACSOS 2004 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 27-29, Electronic Publication: http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/events/conferences/2004/2004_proceedings/Ashworth_NAACSOS_2004Paper.pdf.

Robert Behrman and Kathleen M. Carley, 2004, “Social Network Influences on Strategic Choices,” In Proceedings of the NAACSOS 2004 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 27-29, Electronic Publication: http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/events/conferences/2004/2004_proceedings/Behrman,Robert.pdf.

Judith A. Effken, Barbara B. Brewer, Anite Patil, Gerri S. Lamb, Joyce A. Verran and Kathleen M. Carley, 2004, “Using computational modeling to improve patient care unit safety and quality outcomes,” In proceedings of MedInfo 2004, Amsterdam, Edited by M. Fieschi et al., (Eds.): IOS Press, Part 1, Pp. 726 - 730. Received the AMIA Harriet Werley Award.

Craig Schreiber and Kathleen M. Carley, 2004, “Key Personnel: Identification and Assessment of Turnover Risk”, In Proceedings of the NAACSOS 2004 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 27-29, Electronic Publication: http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/events/conferences/2004/2004_proceedings/Schreiber,Craig.pdf.

Robert Behrman and Kathleen M. Carley, 2003, “Modeling the Structure and Effectiveness of Intelligence Organizations: Dynamic Information Flow Simulation,” In Proceedings of the 8^th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. National Defense War College, Washington DC, June 17-19 Evidence Based Research, Track 7, Electronic Publication, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/8th_ICCRTS/Pres/track_7/2_1630behrman.pdf, Vienna, VA.

Kathleen M. Carley, Matthew Dombroski, Max Tsvetovat, Jeffrey Reminga and Natasha Kamneva, 2003, “Destabilizing Dynamic Covert Networks,” In Proceedings of the 8^th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. National Defense War College, Washington DC, June 17-19. Evidence Based Research, Track 3, Electronic Publication, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/8th_ICCRTS/Pres/track_3/1_1330Carley.pdf, Vienna, VA.

Matthew Dombroski, Paul Fischbeck and Kathleen M. Carley, 2003, “Estimating the Shape of Covert Networks” In Proceedings of the 8th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium.  National Defense War College, Washington DC, June 17-19. Evidence Based Research, Track 3, Electronic Publication, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/8th_ICCRTS/Pres/track_3/1_1400Dombroski.pdf, Vienna, VA.

Judith A. Effken, Barbara B. Brewer, Anita Patil, Gerri S. Lamb, Joyce A. Verran and Kathleen M. Carley, 2003, “Using Computational Modeling to Study the Impact of Workplace Characteristics on Patient Safety Outcomes,” In Proceedings of the AMIA2003 Symposium: Biomedical and Health Informatics: From Foundations to Applications, Electronic Publication: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480268/pdf/amia2003_0837.pdf.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2002, “Inhibiting Adaptation” In Proceedings of the 2002 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium,” Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Evidence Based Research, Track 3, Electronic Publication, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2002_CCRTS/Tracks/pdf/023.PDF , Vienna, VA.

Kathleen M. Carley and Craig Schreiber, 2002, “Information Technology and Knowledge Distribution in C³I teams,” In Proceedings of the 2002 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Conference held in Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Evidence Based Research, Track 1, Electronic Publication, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2002_CCRTS/Tracks/pdf/032.PDF, Vienna, VA.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2002, “Computational Organization Science: A New Frontier,” In Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium Series on Adaptive Agents, Intelligence and Emergent Human Organization: Capturing Complexity through Agent-Based Modeling, Irvine, CA, October 4-6, 2001, National Academy of Sciences Press 99.3: 7257-7262.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2002, “Intra-Organizational Computation and Complexity,” In Companion to Organizations. Edited by Joel A.C. Baum (Ed.), Blackwell Publishers, Ch. 9: 208-232.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2002, “Smart Agents and Organizations of the Future,” The Handbook of New Media. Edited by Leah Lievrouw and Sonia Livingstone (Eds.), Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, Ch. 12: 206-220.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2001, “Organizational Performance, Coordination and Cognition,” In Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology. Edited by Olson, G.M., Malone, T.W. and Smith, J.B. (Eds), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ch. 20: 595-622

Kathleen M. Carley and Vanessa Hill, 2001, “Structural Change and Learning Within Organizations,” In Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organizational Theories. Edited by Alessandro Lomi and Erik R. Larsen (Eds.), MIT Press/AAAI Press/Live Oak, Ch. 2: 63-92.

Kathleen M. Carley and William A. Wallace, 2001, “Computational Organization Theory,” Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, Edited by Saul I. Gass and Carl M. Harris (Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, Pp. 126-132.

Kathleen M. Carley and Yuqing Ren, 2001, “Tradeoffs Between Performance and Adaptability for C³I Architectures,” Proceedings of the 2001 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Conference, Annapolis, Maryland, June 2001. Evidence Based Research, Track 2, Electronic Publication, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2001/6th_ICCRTS/Cd/Tracks/Papers/Track2/082_tr2.pdf, Vienna, VA.

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 2001, “Organizational Design and Adaptation in Response to Crises: Theory and Practice,” AoM Best Papers Proceedings. Edited by In Dennis H. Nagao (Ed.), Sixty-First Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, D.C., August 3-8, “How Governments Matter,” Academy of Management Proceedings 2001, Academy of Management, Washington D.C. OMT: B1-B6.

Pietro Panzarasa, Kathleen M. Carley and David Krackhardt, 2001, “Modeling Structure and Cognition in Organizations: A Meta-Network Computational Approach,” CASOS Conference 2001, Day 3, Electronic Publication, http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/events/conferences/2001/booklette.pdf, Pittsburgh, PA, July 5-8.

Michael J. Prietula and Kathleen M. Carley, 2001, “Boundedly Rational and Emotional Agents: Cooperation, Trust and Rumor,” In Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies. Edited by Cristiano Castelfranchi and Yao-Hua Tan. (Eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Ch. 9: 169-194.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2000. “Organizational Change and the Digital Economy: A Computational Organization Science Perspective,” Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools, Research. Edited by Brynjolfsson, Erik and Brian Kahin (Eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Ch. 18: 325-351.

Kathleen M. Carley, 2000, “Organizational Adaptation in Volatile Environments,” Computational Modeling in Organizational Behavior: The Third Scientific Discipline. Edited by C. L. Hulin and D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Ch. 11: 241-268.

Kathleen M. Carley, Yuqing Ren and David Krackhardt, 2000, “Measuring and Modeling Change in C³I Architecture,” In Proceedings of the 2000 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, June 26-2. Evidence Based Research, Track 3, Electronic Publication, http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2000_CCRTS/html/pdf_papers/Track_3/041.pdf , Vienna, VA.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1999, “Learning Within and Among Organizations,” Advances in Strategic Management: Population-Level Learning and Industry Change. Edited by Philip Anderson, Joel Baum and Anne Miner (Eds.), Elsevier Science Ltd., Ch. 16: 33-56.

Kathleen M. Carley and Dean Behrens, 1999, “Organizational and Individual Decision Making,” In Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management. Edited by A.P. Sage and W. B. Rouse (Eds.), John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Ch. 18: 659-686.

Kathleen M. Carley and Les Gasser, 1999, “Computational Organization Theory,” In Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Edited by Gerhard Weiss (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Ch. 7: 299-330.

Kathleen M. Carley and David Krackhardt, 1999, “A Typology for C² Measures.” In Proceedings of the 1999 International Symposium on Command and Control Research and Technology. Newport, RI., June 29-July 1, 1999, Evidence Based Research, Track 1 Day 2, Electronic Publication, Vienna, VA.

Kathleen M. Carley and Ju-Sung Lee, 1998, “Dynamic Organizations: Organizational Adaptation in a Changing Environment,” in Advances in Strategic Management, Edited by Joel Baum (Ed.), Disciplinary Roots of Strategic Management Research, Greenwich, CN: JAI Press, Ch. 15: 269-297.

Kathleen M. Carley and Michael J. Prietula, 1998, “Webbots, Trust and Organizational Science,” Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups. Edited by Michael J. Prietula, Kathleen M. Carley and Les Gasser (Eds.), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press / The MIT Press, Ch. 1: 3-22.

David J. Kaplan and Kathleen M. Carley, 1998, “An Approach to Modeling Communication and Information Technology in Organizations,” Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups. Edited by Michael J. Prietula, Kathleen M. Carley and Les Gasser (Eds.), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press / The MIT Press, Ch. 9: 169-190.

David Krackhardt and Kathleen M. Carley, 1998, “A PCANS Model of Structure in Organization,” In proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Command and Control Research and Technology, Monterey, CA, June 1998, Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VA, Pp. 113-119.

Ju-Sung Lee and Kathleen M. Carley, 1998, “Adaptive Strategies for Improving C2 Performance,” In proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Command and Control Research and Technology. Monterey, CA, June, 1998. Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VA, Pp. 66-77.

Michael J. Prietula and Kathleen M. Carley, 1998, “A Computational Model of Trust and Rumor,” In Proceedings of the 1998 AAAI Fall Symposium Series - Emotional and Intelligent: The Tangled Knot of Cognition, Orlando, FL., October 23-25, 1998, Pp. 146-147.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1997, “Organizations and Constraint Based Adaptation,” Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: Myths, Models and Theories, Edited by Raymond A. Eve, Sara Horsfall and Mary E. Lee (Eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Ch. 17: 229-242.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1997, “Organizational Adaptation and Cognition,” In proceedings of Cognitive Science Proceedings. Stanford, CA, August 7-10, 1997.

Kathleen M. Carley and Ju-Sung Lee, 1997, “C2 Adaptation in a Changing Environment,” In proceedings of the 1997 International Symposium on Command and Control Research and Technology, Washington, DC., June 17-20, 1997, Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VA, Pp. 287-297.

Michael J. Prietula and Kathleen M. Carley, 1997. “Agents, Trust and Organizational Behavior,” Socially Intelligent Agents: Papers from the 1997 AAAI Fall Symposium. Edited by in K. Dautenhahn (Ed.), AAAI Press Technical Report FS 97-02, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, Pp. 146-149.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1996, “Adaptive Organizations: A Comparison of Strategies for Achieving Optimal Performance,” In proceedings of the 1996 International Symposium on Command and Control Research and Technology, Monterey, CA, June 25-28, 1996, Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VA. pp. 322-330.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1995, “Automatic Restructuring of the C2 Structure and Performance,” In proceedings of the 1995 International Symposium on Command and Control Research and Technology, Washington D.C., June 1995, Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VA.

Kathleen M. Carley and Michael J. Prietula, 1994, “ACTS Theory: Extending the Model of Bounded Rationality,” Computational Organization Theory. Edited by Kathleen M. Carley and Michael Prietula (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Pp. 55-87.

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 1994, “Organizational Response: Trade-offs among Opportunities for Review, Cost and Performance,” In proceedings of the 1994 Spring Symposium on Computational Organization Design, Edited by Raymond Levitt, Ingemar Hulthage, Duvvuru Sriram and Sarosh Talukdar (Eds.), American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, CA, Pp.139-145.

Kathleen M. Carley and Zhiang Lin, 1993, “Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance Under Stress,” Short version, In proceedings of the 1993 Symposium on Command and Control Research, Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VA.

Kathleen M. Carley, David Park and Michael J. Prietula, 1993, “Agent Honesty, Cooperation and Benevolence in an Artificial Organization,” Workshop Notes for the AI and Theories of Groups and Organizations: Conceptual and Empirical Research Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Edited by Prietula M., K. Carley, L. Gasser and D. King (Eds.), Washington D.C., Pp 1-7.

Kathleen M. Carley and Michael J. Prietula, 1993, “Plural-Soar: Towards the Development of a Cognitively Motivated Theory of Organizations,” In proceedings of the 1993 Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology Workshop. Symposium conducted for the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Zhiang Lin and Kathleen M. Carley, 1993, “Does Agent Style Matter in Organizational Decision Making Performance?” Workshop Notes for the AI and Theories of Groups and Organizations: Conceptual and Empirical Research Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Edited by Prietula M., K. Carley, L. Gasser and D. King (Eds.), Washington D.C., Pp. 53-60.

Kathleen M. Carley, Johan Kjaer-Hansen, Michael J. Prietula and Allen Newell, 1992, “Plural-Soar: A Prolegomenon to Artificial Agents and Organizational Behavior,” Artificial Intelligence in Organization and Management Theory, Edited by Masuch M. and M. Warglien (Eds.), Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers, Pp. 87-118.

Kathleen M. Carley and Michael J. Prietula, 1992, “Toward a Cognitively Motivated Theory of Organizations,” In proceedings of the 1992 Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology Workshop. Symposium conducted for the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1990, “Coordinating for Success: Trading Information Redundancy for Task Simplicity,” In proceedings of the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, Jan 2-5, 1990, Los Alamitos, C: IEEE Computer Society Press, 4: 261-270.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1990, “Distributed Information and Organizational Decision-Making Models,” Concise Encyclopedia of Information Processing in Systems and Organizations, Edited by Andrew Sage (Ed.), London, England: Pergamon Press, Pp. 137-144.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1986, “Measuring Efficiency in a Garbage Can Hierarchy,” Ambiguity and Command: Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making, Edited by James March and Roger Weissinger-Baylon (Eds.), Boston, MA: Pitman, Pp. 165-194.

Kathleen M. Carley, 1986, “Efficiency in a Garbage Can: Implications for Crisis Management,” Ambiguity and Command: Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making, Edited by James March and Roger Weissinger-Baylon (Eds.), Boston, MA: Pitman, Pp. 195-231.

- Sargam Garg
PhD Student
Rutgers University

The Network Singularity is achieving enormous, global changes. From the Internet of Things to Super Networks, The Network Singularity changes everything. Among the greatest impact is on the future of media, content and collaboration.

FutureMedia^SM is new research from the Georgia Institute of Technology on the future of media. It covers the impact on people, business and society over the next five to seven years. It is an engaging look into the future including demonstration clips and video interviews offering real-world examples.

Note: It is a bit of an advertisement for the Georgia Institute of Technology. It is published with the very annoying Nxtbook technology. Still, it’s recommended. 

Six trends will have impact:

• Smart Data: In an increasingly noisy world, we’ll have to sift, filter and be smarter about what matters.
  
• People Platforms: Beyond “true personalization,” they will be socially driven platforms made of algorithms from personal and associated data that people design and tailor themselves.
  
• Content Integrity: Pervasive mobile devices, sprawling networks, clouds ,and multi-layered platforms have made it more difficult to detect and address our digital vulnerabilities, drawing us to trusted content sources.
  
• Nimble Media: Media is evolving from a set of fixed commodities into an energetic, pervasive medium that allows people to navigate across platforms and through different content narratives.
  
• 6th Sense: Extraordinary innovations in mixed reality will change the way we see, hear, taste, touch, smell and make sense of the world — giving us a new and powerful 6th sense.
  
• Collaboration: We will harness the power of many in an increasingly conversational and participatory world.

Excerpt:

Don’t use the pronoun I. Using the pronoun I indicates a person is self-absorbed, arrogant and narcissistic. Skilled communicators do not use the deadly pronoun. In The Network Singularity, where substantial persona is established online, it’s prudent to not to use the deadly pronoun.

Decades of research confirms what we have been saying for years.
This December 2011 HBR blog is a good example --

Your Use of Pronouns Reveals Your Personality

to wit,

“Pronouns tell us where people focus their attention. If someone uses the pronoun “I,” it’s a sign of self-focus. Say someone asks “What’s the weather outside?” You could answer “It’s hot” or “I think it’s hot.” The “I think” may seem insignificant, but it’s quite meaningful. It shows you’re more focused on yourself. Depressed people use the word “I” much more often than emotionally stable people. People who are lower in status use “I” much more frequently.”

It can be difficult to remove the deadly pronoun. Give it a try. It’s challenging because it deals with personality and cognition. The personal nature of a social media, blogs and so forth, has absolutely nothing to do with using the deadly pronoun. You just don’t need it. If it is hard for you to remove the deadly pronoun then you have a problem that needs attention.

Removing the deadly pronoun from all correspondence is about professional, personal and cognitive development. It’s not about grammar. Great communicators have far greater flair, impact and effectiveness without the deadly pronoun. The change is immediate and effective. Learn how to share with empathy. Allow ideas to flow.

Heavy users of the deadly pronoun will have a negative reaction to advice. Again, these misanthropes are difficult, self-centered and uncoachable. The are brittle and vulnerable to the slightest criticism. We all know one or more. They pursue selfish goals.They are best avoided.

Recall your Greek mythology. Narcissus was arrogant, mean and cruel. To correct the problem, Nemesis, the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris, cursed Narcissus with self-love. Upon seeing his reflection in a pool, Narcissus became obsessed with his image. This madness killed him.

Overuse of the deadly pronoun indicates a narcissistic personality disorder. The afflicted have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe they are superior to others. They use the deadly pronoun a lot.

Narcissist are fountains of hyperbole and tall jargon. They are common in the business consulting and so-called ‘thought leadership’ precincts. Beware. Narcissists will hurt your business, relationships and objectives. The deadly pronoun is a dead giveaway.

In a LinkedIn Group someone asked, “What are the business terms that most make you want to puke?”  Their were some very good responses and excellent candidates. Here is one they found most egregious. We concur.

The mother of all "idiotic, annoying, or just useless buzzwords" by far is [drum roll please] -- value. It stinks.

The value code word is used by the lazy, ignorant and inarticulate. They employ this nauseating code word when they have no idea of specific merit or worth of something. 

Value provides vague cover for people when they do not know what they are talking about. Value is the refuge of scoundrels. Counterfeit people hide behind the value code word.  

Value attracts attention through guile and deception. It is used often as a ridiculous antecedent, such as ‘value network’ or ‘value proposition.’ Unfortunately, other dubious forms like 'social value,' or 'economic value,' or ‘intangible value’ <gag!> are also popular and, well, oh so nauseating.

The ridiculous value code word appears most often when business benefits are simply absent, e.g., the so-called ‘ValueNetworks’ firm failed in 2011. See: End of Value Networks. Beware of specious offerings using meaningless terms.

Look, if something increases productivity, just SAY so! If something has a benefit or advantage, just describe it, tell us what it is! There is NO need for the 'value' gobbledygook.

Let’s leave axiology to the philosophers and authentic, modern-day scholars. Beware of dubious thought leaders, business value buffoons and clinical solipsists claiming some magical value equation.

Above all, for 2012, in business writing and communications, let’s all eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.  

The Future of Networks gets Plugged-In with author and professor Terri Griffith this week in San Francisco.

The Plugged-In Manager

December 15, 2011
5:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Hult International Business School
1355 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
Super fast, secure, online check-in with MogoTix

(Advance Check-in Required)

Review an outstanding GIGAOM Plugged-In study on how Smartsheet helps transform a school district by Terri Griffith. Follow Terri @terrigriffith.

HubSpot is among your sponsors of The Plugged-In Manager confab. We use their new Marketing Grader. It’s highly recommended.

Marketing Grader will furnish immediate recommendations and improvements for your online presence, discoverability and inbound marketing. HubSpot is definitively Plugged-In.

Same Time, Same Place

Cultivating and participating in proximate, face-2-face social networks sharply and immediately improves performance. Same-Time, Same-Place (STSP) collaboration reduces stress and improves mental function. Research shows face time develops useful connections in the prefrontal cortex and the corpus callosum (the network interconnection of the two hemispheres of the brain). 

In addition, regular and local transorganizational collaboration like The Plugged-In Manager propels innovation.

Today’s relationship economy is driven by authentic conversation. Outstanding leaders know the critical importance of genuine Same-Time, Same-Place (STSP) interaction to stay on their game and becoming Plugged-In.

Physical exercise creates well-being. Social exercise creates prosperity. Join you colleagues for the The Plugged-In Manager at Hult International, The Plugged-In Business School. Secure, online check-In.

As the Network Singularity steadily advances, so does hype, misunderstanding and downright, objectionable falsehoods about social networks, social media and social business.

Some is just learning and naivety. Some is deliberate. Some originates from network dilettantes. It is infuriating that many people think they can just make naïve claims about network science.

Besides being a nuisance, it can be dangerous too. Problematic are so-called experts being highly dismissive of network laws, science, experts, practice and advice.

For example, some recent blogs and Websites talk erroneously about the great importance of ‘strong ties’ to creating economic value. They declare the social network analysis (SNA) principles of ‘strong ties’ are important to creating economic activity. They imply ‘strong ties’ and creating stronger ties are quantitatively and qualitatively better for network outcomes. They claim ‘strong ties’ are ‘gold’ to online or social business. This is wrong, dangerous and ill-informed.

Here are some basic descriptions.

Strong ties are interpersonal links require maximal time to maintain. They exhibit deep emotional properties and intimacy. Strong ties are intense and reciprocal. Strong ties are rare. Typical strong ties are with a spouse, children, parents and siblings. Most people have less than ten authentic strong ties.

Weak ties are composed of links that are more casual, fluid and dynamic. They represent the ever-changing orbit of acquaintances, friends, classmates, colleagues, etc. Weak ties may have proximate and virtual properties. They require little or no effort to maintain. People often have more than a hundred weak ties. Some, of course, have many more.

Absent ties are in-network nodes that lack specific links. Absent ties are very powerful. They offer the potentiality of links. They are extremely important to markets, business and civil society. 

Note: many network laws are counterintuitive. However, they are very easy to grasp once you ‘suspend disbelief.’ Stories are one way to grasp ideas.

In days past, and for many years, rural New England towns had a volunteer fire companies. If there was a fire, you called the town administrator. A volunteer would answer and get the address. They would then blast an enormous civil defense horn with a particular code.

The code corresponded to segments of the town. The volunteers and residents had little yellow sheet with a town map with each code marked. It was usually pinned next to the phone in their house.

They would all scramble to the fire. Someone would go to the firehouse and startup the engine on the fire truck. Sometimes, non-volunteer residents would respond. It was somewhat primitive, but it worked okay. This network created fire protection (benefits) through weak ties.

Today, of course, we have 911. It creates substantial benefits through a different type of tie – absent ties. This key principle is based on potential ties. The 911 network value is in absent but potential ties. It is the potentiality of transaction that creates civil protection.

Now, say you see house on fire on your street. You do NOT call your ‘strong ties’ (spouse, sibling) and say, “Duh, what do I do?” Ya call 911… and fast!

Say you are in Cleveland and you see a bank holdup. You don’t call back to your hometown to find a strong tie to report it. (?) You use the 911 Network! You do NOT know who you will reach because for you and everyone else, 911 in Cleveland is composed of absent ties. Yet, there is ENORMOUS value in 911 – value in a network of absent ties! Hunh? Wow!

David P. Reed

Enter Group Forming Networks (GFNs). A GFN directly enables and supports affiliations (such as interest groups, clubs, meetings, communities) among subsets of its customers with absent ties.

David P. Reed

GFNs tools and technologies, all have a common theme—they allow small or large groups of network users to coalesce and to organize their communications around a common interest, issue, or goal. GFNs are composed of absent ties, like 911. Sometimes they have weak ties, like rural New England in years past. They create enormous, exponential value.

Strong ties are counterproductive. For another example, say you list a slightly used chain saw on eBay. You do NOT run out, excitedly, and ask your wife or best friend (strong ties) to look and make a bid. That, of course, is absurd. Law: strong ties are counterproductive to social media, social business, prosperity and selling used stuff. We all depend on absent ties, the eBay marketplace, to sell our stuff.

Take Away: All network benefits, advantages, and value originate from absent or weak ties.    

Concerning relationship economics, prosperity inhabits group forming networks of absent ties and occasionally weak ties. Strong ties hurt and diminish value creation.

These principles must become innate like they are at eBay, Google, Amazon, etc. It is common for people to not ‘get it’ first time around. To scale social business everything depends on mastery of GFNs, absent and weak ties. Forget about strong ties. It’s a grievous error. It’s a killer.

Furthermore, network laws like GFNs are native, subconscious, innate to some Millennials and many post-Millennials.  Baby Boomers and Generation X struggle to comprehend network laws.

Finally, please remember group forming networks and relationship economics are mostly self-authoring. Markets are formed as individuals opt into fluid constituencies of absent and weak ties that hold the possibility of affinity and benefits.

Basic network laws are simple and profound. They are very important. They need to sink in.  

Workshop: Negative Ties and Social Networks

19-20 April, 2012
Budapest, Hungary

http://negativeties.szisz.hu

Deadline for abstract submissions: 31 January, 2012

Keynote speakers (confirmed):

• Joe Labianca (Gatton College, University of Kentucky, US) (negative ties in organizations)
  http://gatton.uky.edu/Content.asp?PageName=FRIndProfile&ID=541
  
• Patrick Doreian (University of Pittsburgh, US and University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) (structural balance)
  http://www.pitt.edu/~pitpat/
  
• Robert Faris (University of California, Davis, US)
  (negative ties in adolescent networks)http://sociology.ucdavis.edu/people/rwfaris

Aim of the workshop:

Social networks play a very important role in a wide range of social problems: in promoting high performance, reducing conflicts and enhancing integration. Ties and networks, however, are usually considered in positive terms. Although negative ties are less frequent than positive ones, their occurrence may be more influential: they can ruin performance, induce conflict, and hamper cohesion of the collective much more than the extent to which positive relations help. It is therefore high time to discover the true nature and mechanisms of negative networks and develop new methods to analyze their dynamics. The workshop is intended to bring together scholars who are interested in the theory and empirical analysis of negative ties, could it be in the context of social networks in organizations, schools, or other fields.

Potential topics include:

- negative ties in organizations

- bullying and relational aggression

- gossiping in networks

- dynamics of dislike and hate in networks

- structural balance

- relational aggression and status dynamics

- the function of negative ties for group cohesion or for organizational performance

- negative ties and intergroup relations

- rejection and heterophobia in networks

Submissions:

If you are interested in presenting, please send a title and an abstract of no more than 250 words to the conference organizers at info@negativeties.szisz.hu before the deadline of 31 January, 2012.

- Abstract submission deadline: 31 January, 2012

- Acceptance decisions by 17 February, 2012

- Finalization of the program: 29 February, 2012

- Registration deadline 18 March, 2012

- Workshop date: 19-20 April, 2012

A covering fee of participation is €130, payable by bank transfer before 18 March, 2012. The fee covers 1 lunch and 1 dinner, coffee and tea served at the breaks, name badge, conference program, and in addition, the gala dinner that is combined with a Danube river trip on boat (Friday evening).

Hotel suggestions and other information can be found on the workshop website: http://negativeties.szisz.hu

Location: Corvinus University of Budapest (CU, Hungary

Organized by:

Research Center for Educational and Network Studies (RECENS), CUB

Doctoral School of Sociology, CUB

Széchenyi István College for Advanced Studies, CUB

Supported by: TÁMOP-4.2.2/B-10/1-2010-002 project (European Social Fund)

Enquiries about the workshop may be sent to info@negativeties.szisz.hu.

Scientific Organization Committee:

Károly Takács (chair), Corvinus University of Budapest, RECENS
Peter Abell, London School of Economics
Davide Barrera, University of Torino
Anuška Ferligoj, University of Ljubljana

Andreas Flache, University of Groningen
Yuval Kalish, University of Tel-Aviv
Emmanuel Lazega, University of Paris - Dauphine
György Lengyel, Corvinus University of Budapest
Michael Mäs, ETH Zürich
Zuzana Sasovova, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Tom Snijders, University of Oxford/University of Groningen
Zoltán Szántó, Corvinus University of Budapest, RECENS
Martin van der Gaag, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Balázs Vedres, Central European University
René Veenstra, University of Groningen
Rafael Wittek, University of Groningen

- Karoly Takacs
Assistant Professor
Corvinus University of Budapest
Institute of Sociology and Social Policy
Kozraktar u. 4-6.
H-1093 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36-1-4827302
Fax: +36-1-4827348
http://web.uni-corvinus.hu/~tkaroly

There is some minor yet annoying sidebar commentary about ‘Why Google+ is not an Enterprise Social Network.’ Normally it is not worth reacting to such superficial and naïve commentary. However, since it is emblematic of most the problems with enterprise social network services (SNS) it is blog-worthy.

The problems with enterprise SNS are pervasive, insidious and costly. Fortunately, the solutions are simple and free. Unfortunately, various industry actors, and their hype, hubris and hyperbole, create deliberate barriers to matching the problem with solutions and achieving prosperous outcomes. This needs rectification.  

Purpose of the Firm

Often, concerning enterprise SNS, there is a basic lack of understanding about the purpose of the firm. The role of enterprise SNS is to achieve fundamental advancements in productivity, productivity growth (innovation) and enterprise decision making. Period.

Remember, the enterprise operates within a certain bounded rationality for decision making and related activities. There is a cost to gathering and processing information. Insofar as enterprise SNS lower costs, grows productivity and improves decisions, they have benefits. Unfortunately, most do not.

For example, take the so-called enterprise silos. Silos play a critical role – they are a unique social network pattern. Silos, or bounded knowledge domains, create specific benefits, advantages and knowledge for the firm that simply could not be created otherwise.

Principles of social network analysis (SNA) and graph theory are essential to determine the cost benefits and effectiveness of enterprise SNS. They elaborate the productivity, innovation and suitability of enterprise SNS. Deploying (or criticizing) enterprise SNS without comprehension of the actual social networks, the knowledge pathways and structures, is utterly ridiculous. It is the root cause of SNS failures. 

An essential purpose of enterprise social software is to broker structural holes, not tear down silos (?) and other essential organizational, social and knowledge foundations of the firm. It is the knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm and it is rising fast. Brokering via SNS achieves lower cost and greater effectiveness while maintaining, extending and creating essential organizational foundations and network patterns. This is a clear benefit of enterprise SNS: advancing the purpose of the firm.

Enterprise Oversupply

Meanwhile, the enterprise is literally choking on a vast oversupply of collaborative offerings and social network services. The average enterprise has more collaborative capability that anyone could master in a hundred thousand years. Yet, suppliers still battle for the hyper-saturated SNS space as if they have something new or novel. It is a costly mistake and strategic blunder.

Besides commercial oversupply, there is a vast ocean of insanely great open source and otherwise free offerings for enterprise collaboration and robust social network services. All you need to do is switch them on!

It is nothing new. Oversupply and duplication of enterprise solution software has been a mainstay of IT vendors for decades. However, today, for enterprise SNS, it is a lot harder to create the fear, uncertainty and doubt, the so-called FUD-factor, that drives enterprise sales. It’s because most people are already using public and free SNS.

It is just lot more difficult to bamboozle enterprise buyers to get stuff they don’t need like SNS. Slamming competitors with dubious editorial is a tried and true method. Don’t buy it. Remember, the consequence of oversupply is people just won’t use it. It is a common problem. Beware.

Google+

Meanwhile, how can people slam well-conceived service like G+ that is barely five-months old? Google already got their well-deserved comeuppance with Wave, Friends Connect and orkut. It looks like they learned their lesson. That’s a good thing, a very good thing. 

Google is already a de facto enterprise supplier. Note that over four million business use Goggle Apps, including some of the largest in the world and, of course, Google itself. Do you really think when it comes time to deploy their social network services (SNS) plank that these firms will shop the enterprise collaboration marketplace? Why would they complicate their platform and pay through the nose for yet another costly vendor and SNS?  

It’s also important to grasp principles of the software product and service lifecycle. Today, G+ definitely exceeds the basic functional requirements of enterprise social software such as: search, tags, signals, links, authoring, conferencing, etc. It also offers critical social functions, transparency and serendipity. G+ provisions self-organization and emergence for enterprise work and workers. All this for an enterprise SNS offering that exited beta 10-weeks ago. That is impressive.

Let’s remember, sports fans, most collaboration applications and enterprise SNS are DOA or fail to meet expectations. Sorry, but most all of them are a ‘bad fit’ because of the reasons already mentioned.

Email was perceived as a ‘bad fit’ by most organizations in the 1980s. Today, according to CIOs, our lowly email is the #1 mission critical enterprise app by far. Go figure.

Google Apps, including Gmail, Gdocs and G+ are seeing enormous pull-through in gigantic Lotus/SharePoint/Exchange shops (like GM). As the saying goes, the rumors of the death of Enterprise G+ are greatly exaggerated.

Please remember, people tend to stick with what the already know, like and use.

By no means is this an endorsement or recommendation of Enterprise G+. Suitability of any enterprise application requires further in-depth evaluation, cost-benefit and social network analysis prior to the selection of a new SNS (if any). Rarely is SNS alone a driver of enterprise productivity or performance. 

Moral of the Story

The most important thing, what’s missing, is not the application, it’s the collaboration. Most sensible people know this fact. Collaboration is a human behavior. It’s not a technology or SNS. What’s matters most is how technology is used; it matters little how it works. It matters even less who makes it.

See: The Plugged-In Manager.

Too often, social media warp the notion of customers, markets and conversations. Social media simply advance the original social medium: conversation. That’s all. Conversation comes first.

Everyone on the Cluetrain knows that markets are conversations. Customers are conversations. Innovations are conversations and so forth and so on.

Social media, surveys, metrics, and the vast panoply of marketing tools, methods and techniques are very effective so long as they advance the key conversations of customers. To grow, to prosper, try to keep the Cluetrain on its tracks.

Many reflect on Apple, today’s most valuable tech company. What Steve Jobs had was an 'insanely great' customer focus. Devoted customers created the 'insanely great' products. Jobs mastered the customer conversation. His innovations were in CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES. They were not in technology, features, functions. Remember, all of Apple’s principal technology existed decades before.

What Jobs did was translate technology, via incredibly devoted CUSTOMER conversations, into entirely new experiences and outcomes! The insanely devoted Apple community and customers are equally, if not more responsible for ALL the APPL innovations. Without them nothing sticks, nothing maters, no one cares!

For example, many, many MP3 players existed well before the iPod. They emphasized memory, battery life, durability. The nerds and geeks were satisfied. Meanwhile, Jobs listened to CUSTOMERS and introduced a stripped down one that was for people experiencing music. (gasp!)

Wow! What a concept! Instead of technical features, Jobs/Apple listened to his community, devoted the ENTIRE firm to its customers, conducted the key conversations, et Voilà! the iPod was born.

Meanwhile, every geek at the time knew they could download music easily from many sources. It totally pissed off the recording establishment and artists. Nobody would budge. Hence, Napster suits. Anger. Metallica. Fear. Loathing.

Enter Jobs, customers, the Apple community. They conducted the customer conversations. Outcome? iTunes. Ta-da! Both the suppliers and consumers were delighted. All from listening to the customer. All from very mature EXISTING technologies. All from the customer conversation. All before all the social media hype and hubris.

Furthermore, portable telephony had been around for a half century. Electronic tablets originated in the middle of the 19th Century. (Look it up.)

Fact is, the iPhone and iPad are customer-led, lifestyle products. Customers and their experiences are what make products great and successful. Period.

The message? It is NOT innovation! It is about creating great customer experience and customer outcomes – something ONLY the customer knows. They are willing to tell you if your listen carefully and diligently. Start with customers. End with customers. That’s the Jobs mantra. It infuriated the corporate types.

Some dim-wits think customers don’t know what they want AND it for business to tell them. Poppycock! That is utter nonsense. Remember, we are talking about authentic listening, It’s proximate, genuine. Sometimes it involves ‘listening to the listening’ or striving to hear what customers are hearing. 

Apple learned the non-customer led ‘innovation’ lesson the hard way. It tried the arrogant notion of innovation w/o customers. They produced loser products like Newton and Lisa. End of story. Really.

Please remember, Jobs threw out the corporate book on building great companies. He was summarily fired from his own company. Jobs’ clinical focus on customer experience and outcome made executives very uncomfortable.

Most importantly, Jobs famously used LSD and other entheogens to develop and advance his Zen concept of Shoshin or the ‘beginner’s mind.’

Shoshin is developing a profound thinking style of openness, eagerness and lack of preconceptions. This led to many Apple breakthroughs. It aided Jobs’ unmatched customer focus. Shoshin directly advanced the customer experience and positive outcomes. 

Meanwhile, John Scully led Apple right into the tank with the traditional, dopey corporate framework that ‘we know better than the customer.’ It was the height of arrogance. Steve clawed his way back, had an ‘insane’ customer focus, and the rest is history. A history, BTW, created well before soaring farce of social media or worse social business. Moral of the story? listen to the customer, advance the conversation.

Greetings -

The Bay Area Thinking Network is delighted to kick-off 2012 with a holiday reception and book signing. Your next leadership cluster is a configuration of Northern California graduate business schools, the Future of Networks and your global community. The format is conversational. All are welcome and encouraged to join in the conversation.

Hult International Business School
San Francisco

Abstract

Does your business feel more complex than five years ago? Are you having to make more and faster decisions? Are your teams scattered over multiple locations and struggling to define common goals? Are your technology options changing?

If you immediately said yes, or even stopped to consider the answer to at least one of these questions, then please join us for a unique leadership event: The Plugged-In Manager.

You will open your evening with refreshments and networking with your peers. Then Professor Terri Griffith of the University of Santa Clara Leavey School of Business will lead a conversation on how to develop plugged-in approaches to achieve sharp improvements in your activities.

Included in your registration is a copy of The Plugged-In Manager.

Enterprise or startup, products or services, local or global, your organization and people need to collaborate and co-create. Working jointly with other organizations to take on opportunities is critical. Effective sharing and collaboration among employees, customers, clients, and partners has never be so important.

Meanwhile, the people you work with are far more diverse in terms of age, technological sophistication, and cultural background than just a few years ago.

To be effective in this changing world, you need to understand how to work and manage in a way that brings together:

• The way you organize your work
• The knowledge, skills and abilities of your people
• The technology tools of work and not just computer technology.

You can't make a change to one of these three dimensions without making an adjustment to the others as well. The Plugged-In Manager offers the key balanced approach. It allows you to master these principle domains for optimal effectiveness and positive outcomes.

The Plugged-In Manager optimizes common issues such as:  

• Pay and performance
• What social media to use
• Productivity and innovation
• Size and form of your teams
• Reliability in your support and services

Delegates will learn the optimal combinations people, structures and technology to deliver solid foundations for your individual business and organizational requirements.

Following this session you will be able to:

• Assess your starting position
• Evaluate your options
• Outline a plan for improving your situation
• Learn to share these ideas with others

Who should attend?

People at all levels in your organization need to get more plugged in. Individual contributors use their plugged-in expertise to decide the best way to do their work. Members of work teams use plugged-in skills to help the team find the best combinations of people, tools, and organizational processes for a particular task. Managers use plugged-in approaches to build organizations that are effective and efficient. Organizational leaders use plugged-in abilities to create a vision for the future.

The Plugged-In Manager is a networking event. All are welcome. This network cluster is particularly well-suited to entrepreneurs, startups, investors, managers, executives and, above all, leaders. 

Conversation Leader

Terri L. Griffith (B.A. UC Berkeley, Ph.D., Carnegie Mellon) is a Professor of Management at Santa Clara University's Leavey School of Business. From her location in the heart of the Silicon Valley, Terri helps executives and organizational design and technology & innovation management M.B.A. students understand how to build, manage, and improve their organizations.

Terri is the author of The Plugged-In Manager, published by Jossey-Bass. Based on over 25 years of experience and research, dozens of interviews and case studies, she shows that you can't manage through people, technology, or organizational process alone.

To succeed, especially in today's dynamic environment, you need to mix these three dimensions together. The Plugged-In Manager presents how people from companies as diverse a Zappos, Socialtext, and Nucor Steel have been able to create effective mixes, and how you can do the same.

Terri is an expert on how you make combined technology and organization decisions and then work these changes into your organization. Terri’s blog is Technology and Organizations.

Registration, Discounts, Substitution, Cancellation and Refunds

Note: secure online event check-in is required in advance with Mogo Tix. MogoTix sends your event ticket directly to your cellphone. Registration is extremely fast, secure and painless.

All discounts are built in. There are no complimentary passes. Participant substitutions are allowed. The substitute information must be received by 2 p.m. the day before the program. There are no cancellations or refunds. Unused tickets may be used at a future event for a period of one year.

About

The Future of Networks is an action/research network for 21st Century business leadership. It is an agnostic, open, worldwide community, founded in 1998. Stakeholders consists of vendors, academia, technologists, users, developers, managers and leaders.

Testimonials tell the story best. The singular goal is to expand leadership capacity for emerging business network methods, techniques, applications and technologies. This is achieved through action/research, conversation, collaboration and Next Practices.

Employees share information in their personal lives. Companies can use those skills to improve workplace collaboration.

By TERRI L. GRIFFITH

To recognize the huge potential social networking offers for companies looking to improve knowledge sharing and collaboration among their employees, consider these two facts:

• About half of company knowledge-management initiatives stagnate or fail.

• There are about 131 million U.S. Facebook users between the ages of 18 and 64, and more than 500 million world-wide.

That's more than half a billion people using the same kinds of tools so many companies have struggled to put to productive use. In their private lives, users of Facebook, Twitter and other social media are completely at ease forming communities of shared interests and keeping everyone up-to-date with messages, pictures and documents. Now they are ready to put those same tools to work at the office—to help everyone see who knows what, who needs what information, and how to coordinate their work.

In other words, employees already have the skills for more collaboration. It's up to companies to take advantage of them. Here's how to do just that:

Have employees identify areas that would benefit from greater collaboration.

Be explicit. Raise the subject with a question like, "If we had something like Facebook [or Wikipedia, YouTube, LinkedIn, etc.], what part of your work would be better?"

It's likely that many of your employees are already thinking about how they might apply these same tools to improve how they get their jobs done. In fact, they may already have started without you.

In some companies, teams have created Facebook groups around their projects to help them get to know their teammates and have a single place to store project documents. Other savvy teams have studied Facebook, and then asked their IT staff to create a similar online space for collaborative work.

In both cases, employees are taking action based on recognizing unmet needs for online collaboration and knowledge-management tools.

Don't say no to social networking because of concerns about public sites.

Continue: http://on.wsj.com/s9Z4BP

-WSJ

Join Professor Griffith for The Plugged-In Manager to continue the conversation.

The Plugged-In Manager

December 15, 2011
5:30 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Hult International Business School
1355 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
Advance Program Check-In

The prefuse visualization toolkit is a set of software tools for creating rich interactive data visualizations.

The visualization gallery provides numerous examples of the types of applications that can be built with the prefuse toolkit.

-prefuse.org

Semantic Tech & Business Conference - D.C. is next week. Register today and hear from over 70 speakers and get access to over 50 conference sessions.

The conference also gives you the opportunity to make valuable connections with cross-industry peers and semantic technology experts. Join us November 29-December 1 and meet attendees from:

Remember, SemTechBiz is less than a week away. Avoid on-site prices by signing up before November 29. Click here to register now.

The hype and hubris of social media and networks has created a lot of marketing confusion for people. It is astonishing how little so-called experts and advisors know about marketing. Let’s try and clear up all the inane gobbledygook.

Try these tips for starters.

• “A business enterprise has two basic functions: marketing and innovation.”
  
• “There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer.”
  
• “Because it is the purpose of business to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation.”
  
• “Marketing and innovation are the entrepreneurial functions of business.”
  
• “Marketing is the distinguishing and unique function of the business.”

Dr. Peter Drucker

Doesn’t everyone know these canonical principles? It is remarkable how often business people forget what-in-the-hell they are doing. What is wrong?  

For example, here is Peter Drucker’s simple principles updated for startups and entrepreneurs.

Every breath a startup takes must be for customer creation. That’s what investors want: the ability to create, keep and delight new cash customers. Everything else is waste.

We hear a lot of dopey eyewash about the ‘marketing message.’ Marketing is not about creating a message. Rather, Marketing is used to identify the customer, satisfy the customer, and keep the customer. Period.

The best marketing is an out-of-the-building, face-2-face, social activity. Always was always will be. Marketing is the specific, deliberate interactive activities to discover customers. It is to determine what products or services may be of interests to them. That's all. Ta-da!

Markets are conversations. Marketers are active in the conversation. They are not producing ‘marcom.’ Conversation is the mother of all social media.

Social media have been the foundation of marketing since time immemorial. From 19th guild workers asking prospects what makes a great buggy whip, to mid-century focus groups for breakfast cereals, to today's hi-tech networks and communities, marketing has ALWAYS been a conversation. Conducted well, with openness and authenticity, marketing creates new, outstanding products and services that delight and retain customers!

Corporate communications, press releases, advertising, merchandising, blogging, SEO, etc., etc., are positively NOT marketing.

Meanwhile, branding and brand, creating the customer experience, is a foundation of marketing. Branding is NOT logos, typeface or taglines. Brand and branding is the customer experience. 

Of course social media are misused for many useless 'corporate' activities. Still, many firms use social media to listen to the customer without really knowing it. Contemporary social media make customer listening almost a friction-less activity. Social media are also key for 'listening to the listening' in one's industry.

The key marketing activities are customer creation and product management. Glib business consultants usually don’t even know what these activities are. Too often these people don’t know what they don’t know. In these all too common cases, social media are just huge megaphones for profound business ignorance.

Try and understand product management, for example, to grasp marketing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_management

Note: be particularly wary of voluble advice people that speak of some vague, corrupt notion of “value.” They use the value code word because they do not know what they are talking about. The value charlatans often project a revolting air of superiority. remember, customers have no use whatsoever for specious, solipsistic notions of value. Beware. Allow marketing to delight customers with benefits and advantages. Avoid to loopy ‘value’ abstraction at every stage of the lifecycle.  

Marketing is required for building great products. Creating customers is hard work. Customers want specific benefits and advantages. Marketing delivers. Hubris doesn’t.

These marketing activities, and these marketing activities alone, deliver consistent, continuous and superior benefits and advantages to customers. That is the only purpose of business!

Join author and Santa Clara University professor Terri Griffith for an evening conversation on The Plugged-In Manager.

A collaboration of two top Bay Area graduate business schools brings you this valuable networking event.

Registration includes refreshments and your personal copy of The Plugged-In Manager. Registration is limited to assure quality interaction with Terri and networking with other delegates.

Get you mobile ticket by registering today using this simple form.

Thurs 15 Dec 2011 - Evening Program Schedule - The Plugged-in Manager

Hult International Business School
1355 Sansome Street, San Francisco
Southern Room 2nd Floor

5:30 - 6:00 Networking, refreshments
6:00 - 6:45 Main program by the author
6:45 - 7:00 Questions
7:00 - 7:30 Book signing
7:30 - 8:00 More networking
8:00 End of Program

Review of The Plugged-In Manager
Get In Tune with Your People, Technology, and Organization to Thrive

Too often discussions of management practice focus exclusively on managing people and organizational issues. Rarely, however, do they incorporate a discussion about technology or address all three dimensions in a balanced way. When they do, the result is game changing. In our hypercompetitive environment, those managers who are outstanding at being plugged into their people, technology, and organizational processes simultaneously excel at coming up with effective business solutions.

The Plugged-In Manager makes the case that being plugged-in—the ability to see choices across each of an organization's dimensions of people, technology, and organizational processes and then to mix them together into new and powerful organizational strategies, structures, and practices—may be the most important capability a manager can develop to succeed in the 21st century. Step by step Griffith shows you how to acquire this ability.

• Shows what it takes for business managers to succeed as technology and organizations become more and more complex
• Profiles exceptional leaders and organizations who are plugged-in, such as Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos.com.
• Offers a fresh look at key management issues

Filled with compelling case studies and drawing on first-hand interviews, The Plugged-In Manager highlights this often neglected managerial capability and the costs of only focusing on one dimension rather than all three.

 
Publisher
The Plugged-In Manager

Important Event Notes

All delegates must register in advance with MogoTix. There is no on-site registration. There are no refunds, substitutions or discounts. Photo ID required for building access. Register early since this event will reach capacity quickly. You are welcome and encouraged to share this invitation in your social networks and professional orbit.