As network science, social networks and network analysis expand rapidly and value networks become the lingua franca of business, economics and society, novel network patterns continuously reveal themselves. They deserve attention, thinking, visualization and analysis. Some are new and others are continuously evolving. They are central to knowledge, productivity, customer delight, resilient ecosystems and overall business excellence.

One interesting network patterns is referred to as Hastily Formed Networks (HFN). They arise, emerge in situations with the following properties (from the Naval Postgraduate School) –

• Genuine surprise. The precipitating event is in no known category.
• No advance planning, training, or positioning.
• Chaos. Everyone is overwhelmed. People are frantic and panicky.
• Totally insufficient resources. Available resources overwhelmed.
• Multi-agency response rqr’d. 
• Groups with no prior reason to collaborate.
• Moving from a state of "coexistence" to a state of "collaboration." 
• Distributed response rqr’d.
• No command-and-control structure.
• Total absence of infrastructure.
• Makeshift infrastructures need to be deployed quickly.

Most of the attention and network research for HFNs has concerned terror attacks and natural disasters. However, we have all been faced with these specific properties in business at one time or another. You may expect these conditions in the future with 100% certainty. 

Interestingly, and unfortunately, when faced with these properties, training, know how, and expertise quickly reverts to conditioned behaviors. This was tragically manifest in 9-11 with the utter collapse of interagency communications. Katrina had the identical failures and added problems with institutional, governmental and infrastructural intransigence of the Governor, Mayor, FEMA, etc. Many specifc decisions were made that actually impeded the formation of hastily formed networks. A comprehensive value network analysis would have illuminated HFNs opportunities. This, in turn, allows comprehensive response at the local level, for example.

Too often, multi-agency network patterns and configurations pursue ‘unified’ architectures and deployments. This is a deadly mistake. The more these legacy-style architectural practices are institutionalized, the more rigid they become. In turn, the more they are taken for granted, the more resources are required to managing them!

Rather, interagency collaborations in the face of the properties above are best supported as complex adaptive systems. They cannot be managed, only served. A basic value network analysis would quickly illustrate this canon of complexity. To create a resilient, sustainable and thriving inter-agency ecosystem that consistently meets and far exceeds the demands of unknown circumstances, value network analysis is an essential tool.

A interagency value network analysis in NYC, for example, would have illustrated the profound interdependence of the many rapid response agencies and ameliorated the internecine communication faults, political intransigence and network defects. Value network mindset, visualization and analysis helps achieve mastery of complexity, network resilience, robust ecologies and continuous interdependence. In short, value networks and specifically VNA allow organizations to, ‘hope for the best and plan for the worst.’

VNA Professional Edition™ is your one-stop-shop for social network analysis (SNA), organizational network analysis (ONA) and, of course, value network analysis, VNA. It is offered in a secure, hosted software as a service (SaaS) environment.

VNA Professional Edition™ is optimized for your existing Microsoft Office suite. Network data collection and management are handled with ease in Excel. All maps, charts, analytics, reports are created and editable with the popular Office products Word, PowerPoint and Visio.

VNA Professional Edition™ introduces entirely new network visualization and analytic capabilities. In minutes you are able to capture, see, probe, merge, store, retrieve, change, print, syndicate,  analyze, share and optimize social, organizational and value networks.

VNA Professional Edition™ scales from the smallest personal networks to teams, complete departments, the enterprise, complex supply networks, entire economic regions and complete civil society ecosystems. The maps and analytics are easy to work with, powerful to communicate and instantly drive higher levels of network understanding. 

VNA Professional Edition™ furnishes one button 'Load and Go' network analysis. In seconds it generates four comprehensive and attractive social, organizational and value network flow paths, indicators, metrics and narrative:

1. Complete, animated PowerPoint presentation;
2. Detailed Auto Layout Visio diagrams;
3. Summary "dashboard" report of network indicators;
4. Complete 25 page report with over 50 network and value indicators;
5. Comprehensive narrative in plain English of the network dynamics.

These deliverables are ready for printing and sharing immediately. They are fully editable and suitable for emailing, documents, Websites, annual reports, research, and business optimization plans.

VNA Professional Edition™ allows you to create and share hundreds of maps and reports. Annual subscription sign-up is fast, easy and low-cost. You will be mapping in minutes. Included is the comprehensive online Value Networks Help Library, 24/7 support and access to the worldwide value networks learning and practitioners community.

Microsoft Office^®, Excel^®, Word^®, PowerPoint^® and Visio^® are all registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.

This really excellent question was posed by Martin Dugage in a recent discussion in the Value Networks Google Group.

If we do believe that the value of a firm is highly dependent on the "quality" of its value networks, shouldn't we be able to establish some forms of correlation between network metrics and market value?

There are a number of people working on this question, including Mark Granovetter at Stanford. There have been a number of attempts to demonstrate that certain social network structures have a greater economic value than others. These methods are only recently being applied to firms as a consideration for valuation.

Without attempting to address all the work in this area it is certain that linkages between value network patterns and valuations or macroeconomic indicators are beginning to surface. In an evaluation of the impact of research network in Europe, specific value network patterns could be linked to specific patterns of intellectual capital formation at the regional level.

Many in the circle of value network practitioners are of the firm believe that research and practice will continue to bear out that certain value network patterns are indeed more financially successful than others. This is one of the reasons academics and scholars are flocking to value networks and generating research projects.

It is too early to make sweeping statements or draw conclusions until analysts track certain value network patterns and performance indicators over time. ValueNetworks.com Professional Edition tracks exactly those kinds of VN patterns and indicators. The application generates a fully illustrated report of over fifty value network indicators that would support comparison of network patterns with business performance and valuation.

For example, centrality in degree shows the value a role gains from the network and out degree indicates the value a Role provides to the network. Overall centrality is about which roles have the most ties or connections. Unlike SNA where high centrality or betweeness shows a power position, a Role with very high betweeness is actually a risk factor in a value network. In combination with transaction speed (also calculated in the application) it can readily be determined whether a role is a bottleneck or an "accelerator" for the network.

Another determination of value that can easily be linked to financial indicators are the ratios of tangible to intangible deliverables generated by each role. Centrality indicators are essential to structure and value. There is an optimal ratio for specific types of value networks. It's one of the reasons to use VNA to analyze classic business activities like project management and industry specific activities like biotechnology research. This ratio is also manifest in phase changes in networks such as commercializing a scientific discovery. ValueNetworks.com Professional Edition is instrumental in conducting and accelerating these key benchmarks. 

Oliver Schwabe has some intriguing reflections on those possibilities in, "Benchmarking Value Networks Against the Golden Proportion," linked below.

Transactions are represented by a one-directional arrow in the value network map. The arrow represents the directional movement of a Deliverable from one Role to another. Contrasted to Roles, which continue over time, Transactions are temporary and transitory in nature. Transactions have a starting point, middle, and completion.

Deliverables are the actual “things” that move from one Role to another. Technically this would be an attribute of the link. A Deliverable can be something physical such as a document or a chair. A Deliverable can also be non-physical, such as a message or request that may only be delivered verbally. It is the “what” that is most important, not the form that it takes. As communication and Internet technologies reduce our dependency on paper and physical objects physical forms often become less important. For example software used to be delivered through a physical disc or CD Rom but now it is more often downloaded directly from the Internet. The form has changed but the Deliverable is still a software application. Here again it is important to think of technologies as enablers of different activities and focus first on the Deliverables that are moving between actors.

Transactions FAQ

Why can’t we use a double-headed arrow to show multiple instances of the same nature?

Two-headed arrows are meaningless from the standpoint of actually managing something or conducting a useful analysis. A double-headed arrow only shows that there is some kind of relationship. It would not tell us the nature of the relationship, what the specific activities are, who is generating them, or where the activity actually ends. Even the names of double headed arrows, such as information, knowledge or collaboration are too vague and generic to be helpful.

Further, when we come to the time dimension, which is described by Sequencing, a double-headed arrow poses some real problems. Any two given Deliverable events or Transactions may not happen at the same time. There even may be several intervening activities between them.

Also, in the Impact Analysis there might be very different levels of Perceived Value and even different Performance Indicators depending on the Sender and Receiver. It is better to separate activities even though they may be the same type of interaction. There may be exceptions in diagrams that are developed strictly for communication purposes. But the poetic license that can be allowed in the artistic rendering of a value network poses problems when carried into the real analysis.

Isn’t this focus on Transactions just another way of doing a process map or flow chart?

If we Sequence a series of Transactions and then pull out that particular string of activities, we would indeed have a series of steps that could be alternatively depicted as a flow chart. However, this whole-system mapping approach allows us to see much more than just a single process. A completed value network map shows how people and multiple processes interact with each other, interdependencies and the different flow paths options.

Thus VNA provides a dynamic whole-system view that shows much more than a flow chart could. Processes are linear and sequential. If you focus on a process you cannot see the dynamics of the whole system.

However, with a value network visualization you can see not only individual processes but also many important dynamics and patterns across the whole system.

Deliverables FAQ

A chair I understand as a Deliverable, but isn’t a message just information?

For purposes of the mapping technique we can think of organized and packaged information as a Deliverable. For example, let’s take the bit of information that “Your order has been received.” The “packaging” or delivery mechanism for that message might be in the form of a document, an e-mail message, oral or spoken, or might even be non- verbal such as a nod of the head. Even though a spoken confirmation might be non-physical, there is still a basic form or shape to the content of that message - that of “order confirmation.” “Order confirmation” then is the Deliverable.

But what if you have something that isn’t either of these - like a service?

The same principle would apply to a service such as a massage or a haircut. There is still a core form or packaging of that service that can be described as a Deliverable, Again be specific. It is not just service, it is a particular kind of service such as “inquiry response,” “reservation” “tax preparation,” “massage,” etc.

Doesn’t it get confusing calling all these different things Deliverables?

It is actually far less confusing in practice than one would expect. However, in some cases it is important to make finer distinctions than whether something is simply Tangible or Intangible. In such cases one could use color coding or different arrow styles to make the distinctions. In advanced mapping, one could introduce different symbols or icons to represent even more distinctions. 

I had the opportunity to attend one of ValueNetworks.com great VNA workshops on Thursday in LA where the definition of tangible vs intangible was a topic of discussion.

Verna Allee, workshop leader, uses other terms to describe tangible vs intangible – including;

Formal versus Informal. 

·         A defined deliverable in a contract or a Services Level Agreement (tangible) versus interactions that are not contractually specified (intangible)

Some examples.

·         Tangible – finalized agreement:  Intangible – informal advice / guidance from various parties that was used to put the document together

·         Tangible – product sold to the customer.  Intangible – frequent informal conversations between the sales person and the customer that lead to knowing what the customer needed.

·         Tangible – Design document and drawings.  Intangible – discussion with the graphic artist that lead to the creative spark and resulting award winning design.

·         Tangible – Brain surgery.  Intangible – finding the symptoms on WebMD and recognizing that you had better call the doctor…now

Industry level value networks are being brought into sharper focus through the use of value network analysis. In April 2008 150 industry participants gathered in Seattle to define the emerging journalism ecosystem. They first defined the "as is" state of the industry with traditional roles such as publishers and advertisers. They then moved to the question, "What will the new newsroom look like?" describing the new roles and relationships in creating and delivering news.

Visit the links below for thoughtful observations and insights into the emerging news ecology as a value network.