1. Chamberlain & Keast 5 February, 2014
SNA Maps and Measures
Chamberlain & Keast 5 February, 2014

2. Shared Information
The diagram shows the relationships between organisations across which they share information.
The thickness of the line indicates whether the relationship is high (in bold) or low.
The map shows a set of pendants, I.e. Agencies that have been nominated and we have not confirmed the connection. They show up as one directional.

3. Shared Resources
The network for sharing information has the most connections. Other networks, such as this one for sharing of resources, has fewer relationships at a ‘high’ level, and fewer relationships overall.

4. Shared Planning & Programming
The sharing of planning and programming is a core function of a collaborative network working towards common objectives. The ‘high’ level of sharing in this network is an important feature, but stems mostly from the one respondent (Maria Leebeek – top left hand corner).

5. Service Contracts
The service contracts and shared funding networks have the least number of connections of all the relationship groups, and neither network has any ‘high’ relationships between the core group of respondents.

6. Referrals
Though these networks look like they are well connected, a lot of these relationships are not reciprocal. In part this is because M l was not included on the survey, but can indicate that some respondents are more open to sharing information/resources/ planning etc. with others. This is provision finding and would greatly benefit from next stage verification across members and broader contacts (the pendants) that sit outside the network. Useful to survey this group to ascertain / confirm links - their direction and strength.

7. Density measures
Totals
Shared Info
Shared Funding
Service Contracts
Contact Referrals
Shared Resources
Shared Planning and Programming
High 16 10 5
Low 17 22 19 20
Combined 33 29 25 26
As measure of Density
0.286
0.000
0.179
0.089
0.304
0.393
0.339
0.357
0.589
0.518
0.446
0.464
The density measures here provide a quick way of looking at the total number of connections in the network, as a proportion of the total possible (56).
These measures can serve as a benchmark for examining future efforts to build collaboration, particularly in the ‘high’ relationships.