9: Social Network Analysis and Communities
The author examines the notion of "networks," which occur by happenstance (people happen to be of the same religion, or happen to live in the same building, and interact with one another regularly) or by design (in situations where a person can choose to join a group, they gravitate towards others of similar interest); and what's more, a person may belong to several groups, and their behavior changes in the context of one or another.
Based on cognitive and sociological factors, it is estimated that a person can manage a social network of 150 other people, but generally have only a dozen or so "close" friends, and active relationships with only four to six individuals at a given time. This is borne out in research of online networks such as Facebook.
Formal organizations are also networks, which tend to be "designed." A corporation (or a university, or a social club) has a hierarchical arrangement, with people belonging to various sub-groups within the larger group, and networking within and across these planned channels of communication.
It's also noted that a social network is in constant evolution: it grows and shrinks, and the internal structures are in constant flux. People of similar interests form into groups, and there is generally a hierarchy of power and conflict among groups within an organization that does not always correspond to its designed or intentional structure.
The author describes some of the research in the area of semantics, which examines the informational content of messages, especially in context of social networks (EN: he skips about a bit, in an "ain't it cool" fashion, but doesn't seem to be making any specific point of his own)
Of importance to competitive intelligence is being able to track what is being said about yourself and your competitors in public forums (blogs and social community sites) as a method of measuring the effectiveness of marketing efforts as well as reacting to disinformation, or monitoring trends related to industries, products, and markets.
Information within a social network (such as a company's e-mail system) can also be analyzed to uncover useful information, which has been used forensically (when a corporation's e-mail data is demanded by a court or agency as a method of gathering evidence in an investigation.) Internally, it can be used to surface information that is known among the rank-and-file but hidden from top management, or to identify which areas may be overloaded with work, or detecting individuals that might be a security risk to the organization.
Another unique use of this intelligences is identifying individuals in an organization who are "emergent leaders" - individuals on any level of an organization who seem to have influence with others.
Software has been developed for analyzing such data, but the information provided seems to indicate that it is inadequate: it presumes that the user knows what information they want to find (they have a specific hypothesis to test and know what data to collect and how to analyze it) rather than being able to detect patterns in the data itself and call attention to trends and relationships that may not be obvious.
Message Masterminds
Aside of monitoring network communications to discover what is being discussed, there is the potential of the network to be used as a medium for communicating a message. Primarily, it's a conflict between the kind of information you want people to be communicating, versus the kind of information they actually are communicating.
Since it is not a one-to-many medium (like traditional broadcast media), getting your message out is more of a challenge: you cannot merely blast your message to everyone, but must attempt to insert it at key points in the network, where the people will pass it along to as many others as possible (or as many others who fit the target profile, which may be a subset of the network).
When it comes to competing messages in a network, it becomes necessary to deconstruct the network to determine the routes through which information is transmitted in order to determine its entry points and/or its predicted path - a tedious practice that may be worth the effort if attempting to thwart, rebuke, or refute information another party has introduced.
It's noted that, even in proactive rather than reactive situations, having a sense of network structure can provide a major advantage in being able to quickly and efficiently disseminate information through the most productive and credible nodes in the network.
Network Influence
The author uses an anecdote about a person using Twitter to comment on a trade conference, and the noticeable effect it seemed to have on attendance if he made a positive or negative remark about a given presenter. (EN: which seems a bit contrived, and possibly coincidental, but it's not altogether incredible that people at events would use social networking to compare notes and decide what presentations to attend, which is behavior that preceded the technology.)
There's a mention of "sock puppets," companies whose clumsy attempts at social media involve creating fake personas - but people catch on quickly and stop paying attention - as well as offering compensation or gifts in exchange for favorable reviews, which will undermine the person's credibility and their influence.
It's also remarkable that "ordinary" people can have such broad influence in social networks, whereas companies often fail to do the same.
Board Membership
The author mentions board membership, in both corporate and nonprofit organizations, as a common component of executives' leadership experience and networking. In many instances, high-level executive appointments can be traced back to connections made among people who serve on these boards.
From a CI perspective, keeping an eye on the network relationships between individuals who serve on boards can give you insight into personal networks, and a clue as to which individuals could be called in to a troubled company, to fill a seat on their board or take a senior leadership position.
Network Power
The author describes the situation on urban street vendors - those who pitch a blanket on the sidewalk and offer wares for sale. Vendors seem like individuals, but they are heavily networked to one another.
The practice is illegal, and they will be shut down and fined. The author notes that street vendors are networked - they use radio communications (earpieces and wireless microphones) to share information about the motion of police and security guards. In addition to the defensive elements, they can communicate about advantageous factors: where larger groups of tourists seem to be spending money, where supply vehicles are located, even the weather.
As evidence of the success of this tactic, the profession is lucrative enough to draw individuals to take the risk, and the network is very successful at eliding the police, not to mention luxury brand manufacturers who invest considerably in private investigators to shut down the selling of fakes, and have done so for many years.
There is also a competitive element. To be successful, a vendor must move more quickly than his competition - to be in the right place at the right time with the right inventory to maximize his sales - and to use the network to spread enough good information to retain credibility, yet just enough bad information to beguile and mislead their competitors, as well as leading the police and investigators on goose-chases.
It's also mentioned that vendors have fairly good public relations: customers who like to buy knock-off merchandise and have been known to provide directions, hail cabs, keep an eye out for pickpockets, and summon medical assistance - all wof which undermines public support for the police and investigators.
(EN: it's something of a ramble, without much of a point other than the obvious - the illegal nature of their operations aside, street vendors are little different than a consortium of businesses in a given industry, who act competitively, yet cooperatively when it serves their interests to do so.)