The effect of relationship type on social networks

If you look at social networks (Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn, etc.), you will see that they are usually based on relationships between individuals and on occasion (corporations). These relationships are based on individuals with common characteristics and are purely voluntary. Individuals represent themselves. They can act as experts on various topics or provide advice.
Usually relationships in social networks are very loose. Involved users don't have to use their real name and may join and leave the network as they please without experiencing any real penalties. Although certain behavior is frowned upon, the worse that can happen is that their account for that network is deleted.

There are, however, a variety of other types of relationships in which we as individuals are involved. For example, a user may represent his corporation when collaborating with other individuals from other corporations. In such a relationship, there are certain legal requirements that must be met in order for such collaboration to even take place. There are governance issues. Before such individuals can interact, there must be legal agreements that must be present - or there must be some common agreement regarding which rules (moral, etc.) are valid and which must be followed. In a collaborative project environment in which individuals work together, there will be a big difference between environments in which individuals can come and go as they wish (such as open source development projects) and situations where individuals have a certain responsibility (regarding commitment of time and materials) that must be met.

This idea isn't just restricted to corporate cooperation. What about a social network from a clinic that is based on group therapy between an experienced therapist and a group of out-clinic patients. If the group understands that the therapist is obligated by his legal responsibility to not pass the discussed information on to others, the patients may be more willing to speak freely. Thus, such a "closed" group bounded by a legal document / responsibility might be much more effective than a normal chat room.

What effects can different relationship characteristics have on social network technology? One impact may be linked to admittance to the social network itself or to certain parts of the social network. For example, in order to join certain groups, users are required to provide certain legal documents that act as a "governance gate" and which spell out the restrictions and expectations of joining the network.

Thus, it can be expected that as social networks on the Internet expand in their popularity than such networks will expand to include other types of relationships. The technology involved must also change to meet these new restrictions. For example, interaction with other systems (for example archives from notary publics or attorneys) where the presence of documents may be checked. Another possible scenario involves the use of other authentication schemes (besides username/password) where the real identification of users (perhaps via PKI or other stronger methods of authentication) is known.

Currently, this necessary changes in existing social network software is usually the result of custom development work. There is definitely potential here for niche players to move into this area.

Are all members of my social network(s) equal?

I was thinking about Charlene Li's blog about social networks (Yes, again) and one paragraph stuck in my mind where Charlene talks about the possible uses of my social network in shopping environments.

Instead, I want to see reviews from my friends when I’m in the book buying process – on sites like Amazon.com and BN.com. It would mean a lot more for you to look at the Groundswell page on Amazon, and because you’re sign-in with your email address, be able to see any review a friend has written about the book – even if it’s on their personal blogs. That’s the epitome of social networks being like air, when it’s integrated into everything that you do.

I like the idea of the social network being relevant in a particular context (I've blogged about this in corporate settings). If I'm shopping for books, I want to see the book reviews of people in my network. Of course, the problem comes about when I have a huge social network such as that of twitter where I may have thousand of friends. If I have to dig through all those reviews, I'd go crazy. Not only do I have different social networks (perhaps this is just a current restriction of the plethora of social network sites which are available and which don't often share members amongst themselves), I also have different relationships with members of these networks. Some might be personal friends, some might be co-workers, etc.

Furthermore, I may have some personal understanding of the qualities of the members of my social networks. For example, some members share my tastes in music, others have similar interests in books. My impressions of these individuals may also be different from other members of their social networks. I don't know whether these are "sub-networks" of my existing networks ("Facebook friends who have similar interest in Chinese cooking") or new networks. The thought that such networks could exist in the social network cloud (members from LinkedIn combined with Facebook and twitter) is also interesting. Of course, a meta-social network is difficult in that there are many niche social network sites whose collected data reflects their specific interest area (A site focusing at soccer-related networks probably will not acquire information about which books members have read).

Returning to Charlene's example of interaction of social networks in the shopping context, I think that it would much more appropriate to get advice from the select few who taste in books are similar to mine rather than the book reviews of all those individuals in my social network (although this could be provided if desired).

Twitter-like systems in corporate environments

I was thinking about the use of a twitter-like environment in a corporate setting that would allow users to send tweets that contained more „appropriate“ (at least in a corporate setting) content than those usually sent in Twitter. Users working on particular projects might keep their followers abreast of their activities (creating marketing proposal for customer x, working on CAD design for Ford Viper 10 air intake value, etc.). Those users who wish to comment could then send a tweet back with advice, comments, etc.

This is of course the goal of most corporate uses of social network technology. Managers know that there will probably be some degree of „personal“ traffic in such environments. Those tweets that are of a more collaborative character will be critical in efficiently using the knowledge and experience of its workforce. Once those individuals who grow up using this technology enters the workforce in greater force then such behavior/opportunities for collaboration will be acceptable and expected in corporate settings.

One critical issue will be the creation of the social networks in the corporate setting. Will individuals be allowed to create their own? Will the corporation add individuals with a certain profile (same division, same customer, etc.) to an employee‘s network in order to achieve the desired efficiency. This might be expected inasmuch as the huge number of potential followers in a global company will be unknown to the individual employee. I‘ve talked about one variation of „dynamic“ creation of social networks in a corporate setting in one of my SDN blogs. There are probably of variety of other options available depending on industry and corporate culture.

Social context for activities: The corporate angle

I just read Charlene Li's blog at Forrester entitled "The future of social networks: Social networks will be like air" and I was reminded of a blog I wrote on SAP's SDN on the relevance of social networks (even private ones) in a corporate setting. Charlene writes: "That’s the epitome of social networks being like air, when it’s integrated into everything that you do. " and although she is primarily talking about the use of social networks in other private contexts, I think it is just as valid to say that as our private and "corporate" personalities merge and have greater interaction with one another that is just as relevant to think about business applications that use our private social networks and vice-versa.
Of course, there may be some who suggest that there might not be a difference between my "private" social network and my "corporate" one. I agree. As Charlene describes it in her blog, her Forrester colleagues are also part of her network. I would assume that some customers as well are present. Thus, there is not really a distinction between the two.
In a corporate setting, the question is what types of corporate decisions are relevant in an examination of this use of social networks. Of course, you probably wouldn't want to include your entire social network in every purchasing decision you made. But what about decisions regarding product selection or marketing. Would you / could you (sort of sounds like Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham), use Twitter to send out questions regarding a product. To your "personal" followers....