SELaKT - Social Network Analysis as a Method for Expert Localisation and Sustainable Knowledge Transfer

In many organisations, conservation of specialised expertise is picked out as a central theme only after experienced members have already left. The paper presents the SELaKT method, a method for S ustainable E xpert Localisation and K nowledge T ransfer based on social network analysis (SNA). It has been developed during a project co-operation between the Department of Information Science at the Institute for Media and Communication Studies, Free University Berlin, and the Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology IPK, Berlin. The SELaKT method uses recent insights into network analysis and pragmatically adapts SNA to suit organisational practice. Thus it provides a strategic tool to localise experts, to identify knowledge communities and to analyse the structure of knowledge flows within and be- tween organisations. The SELaKT method shows its advances and increasing relevance for practical use by integration of specific organisational conditions and requirements into the process of analysis.

[1]  P. F. Greenfield,et al.  Towards a fourth generation R&D management model-research networks in knowledge management , 1999 .

[2]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[3]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[4]  Mike Wallace,et al.  Managing the Unmanageable? , 2003 .

[5]  Ravi Jain,et al.  Management of Research and Development Organizations: Managing the Unmanageable , 1990 .

[6]  Barry Hopewell,et al.  Fifth generation management , 1997 .

[7]  H. G. Jones,et al.  The New Realities , 1990 .

[8]  Yeo Ming Mei,et al.  Formulating a Communication Strategy for Effective Knowledge Sharing , 2004, J. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Rosabeth Moss Kanter,et al.  Evolve! : Succeeding in the Digital Culture of Tomorrow , 2001 .

[10]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Linked - how everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life , 2003 .

[11]  E. Rosen.  The Anatomy of Buzz , 2000 .

[12]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[13]  R. Hanneman.  Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[14]  John Scott.  What is social network analysis , 2010 .

[15]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[16]  Simon Collinson,et al.  Knowledge Networks for New Technology-Based Firms: An International Comparison of Local Entrepreneurship Promotion , 2003 .

[17]  Kai Mertins,et al.  Knowledge Management , 2003 .

[18]  Nitin Nohria,et al.  Face-to-Face: Making Network Organizations Work , 1992 .

[19]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[20]  G. Farris,et al.  Knowledge Management in Research and Development , 2001 .

[21]  Georg von Krogh,et al.  Towards knowledge networking , 1999, J. Knowl. Manag..

[22]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[23]  Eric L. Lesser,et al.  Communities of practice and organizational performance , 2001, IBM Syst. J..

[24]  Charles M. Savage.  Fifth Generation Management: Integrating Enterprises Through Human Networking , 1990 .

[25]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[26]  Antonello Zanfei.  Transnational Firms and the Changing Organisation of Innovative Activities , 2000 .