## Designing Effective Knowledge Networks > [!Abstract]- > In today’s interconnected world, networks for sharing knowledge are increasingly important. > [!Cite]- > Pugh, Katrina, and Laurence Prusak. “Designing Effective Knowledge Networks.” _MIT Sloan Management Review_, September 12, 2013. [https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/designing-effective-knowledge-networks/](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/designing-effective-knowledge-networks/). > > [link](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/designing-effective-knowledge-networks/) [online](http://zotero.org/users/17587716/items/43JQEP2C) [local](zotero://select/library/items/43JQEP2C) [pdf](file://C:\Users\erikt\Zotero\storage\H2AGLDBJ\Pugh%20and%20Prusak%20-%202013%20-%20Designing%20Effective%20Knowledge%20Networks.pdf) ## Notes %% begin notes %% %% end notes %% %% begin annotations %% ### Imported: 2025-07-23 10:48 am “KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS” are collections of individuals and teams who come together across organizational, spatial and disciplinary boundaries to invent and share a body of knowledge. In today’s interconnected world, networks for sharing knowledge are increasingly important. By paying careful attention to eight dimensions of network design, leaders of knowledge networks can facilitate desired behaviors and outcomes. In his classic 1937 article “The Nature of the Firm,” economist Ronald Coase predicted that companies would grow larger as information costs fell.2 The knowledge network has been trumpeted as a model for innovation and scale — one that capitalizes on the agility and reach of human connections while integrating practical insight into the day-to-day work of network members. Networks can be 10 people across a handful of organizations or 1,000 people across continents and industries. Knowledge network members come together around a common goal and share social and operational norms. Most researchers agree that network members participate out of common interest and shared purpose rather than because of contract, quid pro quo or hierarchy. However, researchers don’t agree about the importance of formal structure, organization and leadership. Some emphasize that members are simply “linked together by interdependent exchange relationships” while others call for formalized roles, routines and metrics.3 What’s clear is that knowledge network leaders can influence members’ behavior through network design and facilitation. Much recent writing in both the academic and popular presses about knowledge networks has focused on their outcomes and products, such as knowledge diffusion, new knowledge creation, influence and intercompany and interpersonal connectivity.4 we developed case studies of ConocoPhillips, the world’s largest independent exploration and production oil company, and Women’s World Banking, a global nonprofit that operates in 28 countries and is dedicated to providing low-income women with access to financial tools and resources. These different examples provided a good test for the model: At ConocoPhillips, knowledge networks are an intermediate good, a means to an end and a vehicle to create products or drive efficiencies. At Women’s World Banking, the creation and diffusion of knowledge is the product — the value Women’s World Banking brings to market. Considerable research shows that unless goals are clearly stated and agreed upon, networks can easily lose energy and underperform.6 We discerned four distinct types of goals. 1. Coordination. When coordination is a key goal, the network coordinates and leverages members’ existing knowledge activities through its structures, incentives and norms. 2. Learning/Innovation. When learning and innovation are important goals, the knowledge network commissions, accumulates and distributes knowledge for its members’ consumption, or as a general public good. 3. Translation/Local Adaptation. When translation and local adaptation are primary network goals, teams join the knowledge network to identify and adapt knowledge to their specific local challenges. 4. Support of Individual Members. When this is an important goal, individuals join the network to develop, accumulate and adapt knowledge to support their own and their colleagues’ work. Support of individual members is the most common goal of the corporate knowledge networks we examined. Borrowing from the organizational learning field, we studied the knowledge network through the lens of what is called a leverage framework. chain of influences (Design Dynamics Behaviors Outcomes) Outcomes can be described as meeting the four knowledge network goals of coordination, learning/innovation, translation/local adaptation and support of individual members. Depending on the context, the network achieves measurable change in the area of focus, whether that focus is revenue, operations, job satisfaction, learning, sustainability or profitability. Behaviors are those that are conducive to outcomes: cohesion, demonstration of trust, connection sharing, using a common technology platform and making investments in collaboration, such as taking time out to answer fellow members’ questions. Dynamics are feedback loops, the systems and structures that sustain a given behavior. Dynamics can also be patterns of interaction with the outside world, such as reactions to market threats and incentives. Design encompasses the set of conditions that network leaders explicitly put in place to trigger those dynamics and, in turn, set behaviors into motion. Experienced knowledge network leaders that we interviewed endeavored to create a consistency between structures (such as operating model, charter and technologies) and strategy (such as purpose, network composition and learning context). They used visible performance information and incentives (such as reputation, recognition and sense of belonging) to inspire, motivate and redirect the behaviors of the members. We identified eight design dimensions of knowledge networks. 1. Leaders’ SharedTheory of Change. Successful knowledge network leaders can describe the mechanisms through which network activities will have an impact on members and organizations. We found that good leaders were role models, inspiring members to act, and they did not delegate work such as being online and responding to discussions. They were routinely visible — as a cohesive team — to the community. For example, ConocoPhillips senior leaders have gone on record endorsing cross-organizational knowledge sharing of their Networks of Excellence as critical to innovation in the company’s exploration and production process. 2. Objectives/Outcomes/Purpose. Leaders help to define the network’s purpose and target outcomes. Outcomes can be solving a specific problem or combining forces and knowledge. They can be classified as one or more of the network goals described earlier, such as support of individual members. A charter or similar document lays out the network’s objectives and purpose, which need to be sufficiently crisp that members can state them. 3. Role of Expertise and Experimentation (also called the expert-learner duality). Leaders need to be clear on how the network makes it safe for even the expert to be vulnerable and learn and for the learner to speak of bold possibilities. 4. Inclusion and Participation. Knowledge network leaders position the knowledge network or network program among other operations or competing organizational models. The network’s core team explicitly defines what types of members they seek and actively recruits them. For example, they may seek out cognitive, geographical and professional diversity, or an amalgamation of separate social networks. They may seek to balance technical or operational expertise with convening or networking skills.9 5. Operating Model. Knowledge network leaders decide what roles, responsibilities and decision processes are needed for optimal network operations. All stakeholders, including the public, should be described in the operating model, and there should be clarity about how resources are allocated. For example, there may be core team members (including managers of content, membership, events or measurement) as well as small project teams or working groups that assemble for just a few months to complete a task. Typical projects for working groups might involve integrating viewpoints, conducting a survey or drafting a policy. Operations over time are expected to change. The core leadership team may rotate to add fresh ideas and reduce burnout. Schedules are published and tracked. 6. Convening Structures and Infrastructures. Network leaders understand how online and realtime or live convenings serve to build cohesion, connectivity, collaboration and engagement. In our research for the Gates Foundation, we found that despite much excitement about social media and collaboration portals, network leaders and researchers named real-time human connections (meetings, conference calls, video teleconferences) as prerequisites for trust building and knowledge sharing. This is consistent with recent research that found that teams’ performance correlated directly to the frequency and variety of real-time interactions.10 Semantic analysis of users’ work (predicting what content users are more likely to access and reuse) is shortening search and browse times on network platforms. 7. Facilitation and Social Norm Development. Knowledge network leaders take on the roles of facilitators and change agents, not just project managers. They convene members in meetings, discussions, games, events and other interactions to draw out their hidden insights or to provoke a common curiosity.11 8. Measurement, Feedback and Incentives. Network leaders look for evidence of success or failure in network participation, as well as ways to incentivize people to join, participate and engage. Network performance metrics are elusive, as outcomes are often felt at the members’ home organizations and thus are separated in space and time from inputs like discussion participation. Leaders address these delays between knowledge network behaviors and impacts by having a map that shows the pathway between inputs and outcomes. There are clear checkpoints during the monthly or quarterly schedule when network leaders look at performance data and look at improvements to plans. ConocoPhillips routinely publicizes the business impacts of its Networks of Excellence. For example, recall the anecdote mentioned earlier about how a North Sea business unit adopted a technique for underwater tank inspection from an Australian business unit. The company also publishes input statistics, such as membership and discussion posts, as well as numbers of published lessons learned. Network participation and knowledgesharing rates roll up to functional and business unit performance metrics, which link to a discretionary portion of ConocoPhillips employees’ variable compensation. Ranta is clear on this issue: “If you are not in a network that can help your work, or if you are not active, you are not contributing to the greater good of the company.” %% end annotations %% %% Import Date: 2025-07-23T10:48:18.062-06:00 %%