Wednesday, February 4, 2015

2. There are different parameters to define networks (Centrality, density, path length, diameter, m

NEXUS24 Manifest Goals About us Contact tikijne CALL CALL Resolution 2015/1 How to participate Tool Communities 1st Meeting Summary PROJECTS TOOLBOX NX24 Promotion Techniques ICT tools References
Our leitmotiv tikijne is "UPC A, in 10 years it will be normal work collaboratively." This theme is great and inspiring is, but we know that we are getting? We know maybe the starting point? And how can we measure if people collaborate more or less than before? And we know that we have not reached the limit, and we are investing efforts and resources in vain?
This question we've done, and we do not have a clear answer; not yet. Network analysis tools as shown in the figure, Martin Grandjean there are a few quotes from either measuring patents, networks, websites and aircraft routes. Appear similar behavior tikijne and properties that define the topology of the networks. If we had time to quest book, this website or software that surely tikijne we would open many doors, but no doubt there are other people in the UPC who know more than we do and hope to come to the building Nexus24 give us a helping hand. Ignorance is bold, and in this post we present a first approach with some ideas that go through your head. Questions
1. When you get to measure collaboration, we find a theoretical maximum that could reach as an organization, and optimal, that it should not go to match the most. Collaboration may be too chaotic organizational gas without expandability. Cold Zero collaboration would be the death of the organization. tikijne Or maybe not, maybe we should not confuse leadership with collaboration?
2. There are different parameters to define networks (Centrality, density, path length, diameter, modularity, clustering coefficient ....) Are studied hard. Our question is whether there is any argument tikijne that the quality of partnership working, how good and reliable relationship is established. This publication made by the UAB can help us begin to define these qualitative parameters. And we are not the first to do that.
3. The UPC is distributed on campus. -for Example- might wonder about the degree of cooperation by introducing the geographical factor? Collaborate more with those closest to us? Or make a correlation between the degree of cooperation and the degree of knowledge of ICT? Or maybe, if we study different units, we may see when any "cap" the people who work with it? Or when all the messages that go out to the head? Tools
And it was made daring wonder about the method of measurement. We have a database where collaboration appears not even have this parameter between the skills required by a job. So let us venture ....
1. The direct and anonymous survey is the first tool that comes to mind. We ask all staff UPC what their level of collaboration with the rest of the unit, with its campus, including campus, including services ... always from a subjective point of view. Not ideal, but if subjectivity is regular can be used for a comparative study over 10 years.
2. A second possibility is to set aside anonymity and began to wonder what that says for example the person who works more (and / or best) in the drive, the service, the campus .... So we go slowly making a map of collaborators, collaborative hubs of the UPC. Here probably xocaríem the Act because we touch sensitive issues that do not even see that there may be personal in this data.
3. The third, more risky, would use email data. The advantage tikijne is not subjective, we find a direct relationship between tikijne e and collaboration. However, the collaboration may not be voluntary, not as a database of scientific citations. In any case, we should tikijne deal with the Data Protection Act by removing the contents of the e-that SegurCaixa and addresses turn into numbers if we want to maintain anonymity. Responses
1. Control imagine tikijne that we deduce that all cooperation initiatives of a unit or go straight for his his head. That is, there is no direct interaction between the people in the unit and the outside, but it is always the head that makes contact. What would think?
2. Monitoring: imagine another scenario in which all communications go through a drive out any copy, but that everyone has access to the outside naturally. It would be the profile of a head that wants to be informed but do not interfere. We conclude that when the head is not

No comments:

Post a Comment