Socially innovative research networks: A roadmap for SInet

The Social Innovation Network (SInet) was established for cross-disciplinary research on social innovation to 'create better futures for people'. SInet is itself socially innovative since a network is a relatively unfamiliar configuration for a university-wide research unit. A network provides an identity to a research collective that is real, having status and support,but which is fundamentally different to an institute. In a network, connections and flows of knowledge tend to be horizontal not vertical. A network is flexible, reconfigurable, responsive to change and less formal, and has the potential for lower administrative overheads. As knowledge workers, university researchers perform best in an organisation that supports an open culture where knowledge workers are left alone to work, with sufficient support and resources. Their performance is maximised by capitalising on their strengths and knowledge rather than trying to force them into moulds.This paper compares the attributes of a research network to a more traditional hierarchical institute. It asks and answers the questions: what is a research network; why have one for intra-institutional research; and how can it be created, sustained and its value determined? Three theories will be used to (a) provide the reasons and justification for network-centric configurations, (b) make sense of the network-centric paradigm and its characteristics, and (c) understand how to act in a network-centric workplace arrangement. Not everyone is comfortable working in a self-directed network-centric configuration, so will SInet work, and if so, how?

[1]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Collaborative Knowledge at the Grass-roots Level: the Risks and Rewards of Corporate Wikis , 2007, PACIS.

[2]  Leoni Warne,et al.  Quality of Working Life, Knowledge-Intensive Work Processes and Creative Learning Organisations: Information Processing Paradigm versus Self-Organisation Theory , 2002, HCC.

[3]  Andrew McAfee,et al.  Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration , 2006, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[4]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Knowledge work as collaborative work: a situated activity theory view , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[5]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  Organisational memory and learning network organisation: the case of Finnish labour protection inspectors , 1995, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[6]  Peter F. Drucker,et al.  The Coming of the New Organization , 2001 .

[7]  Helen Hasan,et al.  The network centric environment viewed through the lens of Activity Theory , 2005 .

[8]  Vesa Peltokorpi,et al.  Knowledge governance in a Japanese project-based organization , 2006 .

[9]  Rahul Roy,et al.  Persistence of Cultural Norms in Online Communities: The Curious Case of WikiLove , 2009, PACIS.

[10]  Helen Hasan,et al.  The Co-evolution of an Accessible but Secure Virtual Space for Collaborative Activities , 2006, Bled eConference.

[11]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[12]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Association for Information Systems Year 2009 Making Sense of IS with the Cynefin Framework , 2009 .

[13]  H. Hasan.  Back to the future for KM: the case for sensible organisation , 2008 .

[14]  C. Kurtz,et al.  The New Dynamics of Strategy sensemaking in a complex-complicated world , 2004 .

[15]  P. Drucker.  Landmarks of tomorrow , 1959 .

[16]  Helen Hasan,et al.  SNA as an Attractor in Emergent Networks of Research Groups , 2006 .

[17]  David Snowden,et al.  The First Age: Information for Decision Support 1995: the Transition to the Second Age Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self-awareness , 2022 .

[18]  P. Senge.  The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization/ Peter M. Senge , 1991 .

[19]  Clay Sprawls,et al.  The virtual corporation , 1993 .

[20]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Democratising Organisational Knowledge: The Potential of the Corporate Wiki , 2007, ICIS.

[21]  Christine von Prummer.  e-Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues , 2003 .

[22]  Leoni Warne,et al.  A Holistic Approach to Knowledge Management and Social Learning: lessons learnt from military headquarters , 2001, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[24]  Helen Hasan,et al.  An activity-based model of collective knowledge , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[25]  M. Malone.  The Virtual Corporation , 1993 .

[26]  Cynthia F. Kurtz,et al.  The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[27]  J. C. Thomas,et al.  E-Democracy, E-Commerce, and E-Research , 2005 .

[28]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Transforming Organizational Culture to the Ideal Inquiring Organisation: Hopes and Hurdles , 2005 .