ICP&LE Preliminary Social Network Analysis Results Gregg Moor Project Manager & Director, InSource Research Group Allan Best – Jen Bitz – Chad Bousman ICP & LE SNA Webinar 2 November 25, 2010

Contents Overview Review of Social Network Analysis The Survey Preliminary Findings Designing a Network & Questions to Help You Do It Right

Overview SNA: Examines specific types of relationships between organizations within a network, to identify patterns of interactions and generate ideas for improving performance. eCoP: An online tool providing space for network members to share information and support collaborative work and learning from others.

A set of dyadic ties among actors –Actors can be persons, organizations, groups –A tie is an instance of a specific social relationship involving flow of knowledge, goods and services, etc. Cheshire, UC-Berkeley Review of SNA

Some SNA Terms Centrality - Which org’ns are located more centrally, or more peripherally, and how does this affect the goals of the network/nodes? –Connectedness Centrality – Which org’ns have the most ties in total? (Hubs) –Betweenness Centrality - Which org’ns connect other org’ns which have no direct connections? (Brokers)

Some SNA Terms, cont’d Clique - Group of org’ns in which every one has a direct tie to everyone else, and there is no other org’n in the network to which all group members have a tie. Fragmentation – Proportion of pairs of org’ns in the network that cannot reach each other directly or indirectly (through other org’ns).

ICP&LE SNA Survey The network was defined by organizational membership within the ICP&LE Project Steering Committee, Jurisdictional Steering Committees, and the Western and Northern Health Human Resources Planning Forum 31 organizations in total 28 completed = 90% participation!

Relationships Measured Sharing Information Planning Strategies Non-Funded Collaborative Projects Funded Collaborative Projects

SNA Question from Survey

Reciprocal Ties To increase validity of the results we focused on reciprocal ties. A reciprocal tie exists when org’n A reports having a certain relationship with org’n B, and org’n B also reports having that certain relationship with org’n A. All TiesReciprocal Ties

Sharing Information – Reciprocal Ties Line color: Grey=Low intensity; Blue=Moderate intensity; Red=High intensity Node color: Black=completed survey; Grey=did not complete survey

Sharing Information- Mod/High Line color: Grey=Low intensity; Blue=Moderate intensity; Red=High intensity Node color: Black=completed survey; Grey=did not complete survey

Sharing Information - Cliques Clique 1 (AB) : CPTA, AHW, AHS, CARNA, CPSA, NAIT, UoA Clique 2 (SK) : WRHA_CSCS, HC, SRHA_SK, CIHC, IHCS, SMH, SCRHA_SK, UoS Clique 3 (BC) : BC_MHS, VIHA, VGH_MB, WCIHC Clique 4 (MB) : UoM, MH, WNHHRPF, BC_AHC, WRHA_NI, WRHA_RPG

Planning Strategies – Reciprocal Ties Line color: Grey=Low intensity; Blue=Moderate intensity; Red=High intensity Node color: Black=completed survey; Grey=did not complete survey

Planning Strategies – Mod/High Line color: Grey=Low intensity; Blue=Moderate intensity; Red=High intensity Node color: Black=completed survey; Grey=did not complete survey

Planning Strategies - Cliques Clique 1 (AB) : AHW, AHS, CARNA, CPSA, NAIT, CIHC, UoA Clique 2 (SK) : SRHA_SK, SCRHA_SK, SMH, UoS, IHCS, Clique 3 (BC) : BC_MHS, VIHA, VGH_MB, WCIHC Clique 4 (MB) : UoM, MH, WNHHRPF, BC_AHC, WRHA_NI, WRHA_RPG

Non-Funded Collabs. – Reciprocal Ties Line color: Grey=Low intensity; Blue=Moderate intensity; Red=High intensity Node color: Black=completed survey; Grey=did not complete survey

Non-Funded Collabs. - Cliques Clique 1 (AB) : AHW, AHS, CARNA, CPSA, NAIT, UoA Clique 2 (SK) : SRHA_SK, SCRHA_SK, SMH, UoS Clique 3 (MB) : IHCS, CIHC, VIHA, WCIHC, UoM, MH, WRHA_NI, VGH_MB, WRHA_RPG

Funded Collaborations – Reciprocal Ties Line color: Grey=Low intensity; Blue=Moderate intensity; Red=High intensity Node color: Black=completed survey; Grey=did not complete survey

Funded Collaborations - Cliques Clique 1: CIHC, IHCS Clique 2 (AB) : AHW, AHS, CARNA, CPSA, NAIT, UoA Clique 3 (MB) : VIHA, WCIHC, MH, UoM, WNHHRPF, WRHA_NI, VGH_MB, WRHA_RPG

Summary Findings The Forum and AHW consistently showed up as hubs and/or brokers regardless of type of relationship examined. Others currently well-positioned to bridge cliques or serve as hubs: BCAHC, CIHC, WCIHC and VGH_MB. Cliques tend to follow provincial lines. Overall, high degree of fragmentation.

Designing the Network Network of networks Project Steering Committee The Forum Jurisdictional Steering Committees Project Sites within Jurisdictions Across Project Sites Others

Higher Centrality Networks Networks with higher centrality are better at ensuring every member in the network has the same info. Info sharing is efficient. Good for building trust. Focus on existing and likely hubs/brokers, the roles they play sharing info within the network, and methods they can leverage to maximize those roles. Can lead to passive membership.

Lower Centrality Networks Networks with lower centrality are better at generating and drawing in new info, and capitalizing on diversity across the network. Focus on building links between multiple organizations across the provincial cliques. Requires active participation by network members.

Questions for Moving Ahead Given what the SNA tells you about your network, what should be next steps? Review the hubs and gaps. What does that mean to the network? What can be leveraged or changed to improve network functioning?

Questions for Moving Ahead Which options for improving the network are highest priority? What needs to be done for those changes to occur? How can the eCoP be used to facilitate this “design” discussion? Can the eCoP be used differently to support development at different levels of the network?

Gregg Moor Project Manager & Director InSource Research Group Contact Info Research expertise for health systems solutions