One of the most powerful benefits of value network modeling is the ability to monitor, predict and influence performance. Metrics are made simple with the Comprehensive Reports function in the ValueNetwork.com application. In addition to Animations and Detailed Visuals, indicator reports are generated for the Standard Value Network (Role view) and the Collaborative Value Network (Participant view). The example and some text below are drawn from a Standard Value Network (Role-based) Report, using the example of scheduling procedures in a health care organization. For other blogs in this series see the links at the end or simply search "Indicators and Metrics."
Reciprocity
Reciprocity is one of the key questions addressed in an Exchange Analysis, which is an assessment of value dynamics throughout the whole network. An Exchange Analysis focuses on finding overall patterns in the network, and surfaces key issues – such as health, robustness, and resilience. The questions it addresses are grounded in systems thinking, classic network analysis, intangible asset management and living systems theory.
What to look for
Imbalances: Is there an appropriate balance of Tangible/Intangible inputs and outputs for different Roles and in the network as a whole?
Overburdened Roles and Participants: Are there particular Roles or Participants that are unduly carrying the burden of network interactions where disruption could put the network at risk?
Work arounds: Are there patterns of intangibles that might indicate something is not working in the formal processes or a Role is not functioning as effectively as it could?
Value Reciprocity: Are there reciprocal value relationships between Roles?
Disconnects: Are there missing or dead links? Where does a value flow get stuck or break down? Where does a Role fail to transform inputs to appropriate outputs?
Interdependencies: What are the structural interdependencies?
Useful Questions
1. How does value gained by one Role extend to or “flow” to other Roles or strategic partners within the organization?
Do the flows show that value gained by one Role actually accrues value for the company as a whole?
If a group of Roles belongs to the same organizational entity, then value that is gained by one Role from an external stakeholder should accrue both directly to that Role and either directly or indirectly to other Roles in that organization. When value gained by one Role is not accrued efficiently to its internal and external organizational partners, then value gain is diminished.
2. What does the pattern of interaction suggest about the level of trust in the network?
a. What norms of behavior are revealed in these exchange patterns?
b. What does the intangible activity indicate about transparency and trust?
The ratio of tangible to intangible transactions, or the depth and quality of knowledge flows, can be an indicator of trust.
3. Is one type of value exchange more dominant than another?
a. Do Tangible exchanges significantly outnumber Intangibles? (Or the other way around?)
b. If so, why do you think that is?
c. What would the implications be if it were different?
The dominance of a particular type of exchange may be an indicator of assumptions about value that drive system behaviors. Value exchange patterns also may point to places there might be structural or behavioral constraints on maximizing value. A high number of Intangible exchanges is not always a positive sign. It could indicate that people are interacting informally to try to manage infrastructure problems or unhelpful behaviors. Some Intangible interactions are actually “work-arounds” where something is broken or a Role is not being well executed.
4. Are there places where people need to be engaged in exchanges but are not?
Every interaction is an opportunity to create value or build relationship.
5. How deeply enmeshed and interdependent are the Roles?
The number, type, and frequency of interactions are indicators of the degree of structural coupling between a pair of Roles and may indicate the quality of a relationship.
6. Is every participant both contributing and receiving value from the network as a whole?
a. Which Roles are value “sinks” that absorb value but contribute little?
b. Which Roles contribute more value than they receive? Is that a risk?
If people feel they are not gaining positive value from the network they are more likely to withdraw.
7. Does it appear that some Roles are gaining value at the expense of another? If so, what are the implications?
If Participants in the network feel a particular Role or Participant is behaving unfairly, they are more likely to reconfigure Roles and interactions in ways that diminish that Participant’s place in the network – or alter the value interactions.
8. What do the patterns of reciprocity tell you about this network?
A consistent pattern of reciprocity in exchanges between Roles is an indicator of healthy value flows and whole-system optimization.
9. Are there bottlenecks, constraints, or instability in the flow of value?
Network patterns can be affected by control mechanisms and decision making. When one Role unduly constrains or controls Transactions it is an indicator of structural or behavioral constraints impeding value flow. Missing links, dead links, and broken value flows are indicators of missed opportunities for maximizing value. Sequencing transactions as they occur in the overall activity helps reveal missing links and poorly configured value paths.
10. Does every action elicit a response?
Every action either triggers another Transaction or has an internal impact on the Receiver. If an action does not trigger a positive value-creating response or generate additional value interactions, one needs to ask why is that activity happening? Is it really necessary? Is there a better way to utilize assets?
Useful Reciprocity indicators
Classic network analysis often looks at Reciprocity - the extent to which ties are reciprocated between Roles or Participants. Some theorists feel that asymmetric (unreciprocated) ties may be unstable. A network that has a predominance of reciprocated ties over asymmetric connections may be a more "equal" or "stable" network than one with a predominance of asymmetric connections. A lack of reciprocity sometimes indicates there is a more hierarchical structure. The following examples are from the same example of scheduling procedures in a health care organization as the other topics in this series
All transactions: Of all pairs of Roles that have any connection 53.33 % of the pairs have a reciprocated connection.
Intangible transactions: Of all pairs of Roles that have any connection, 44.44 % of the pairs have a intangible reciprocated connection.
Tangible transactions: Of all pairs of Roles that have any connection, 46.15 % of the pairs have a tangible reciprocated connection.
Other topics on this series: | 
