Finally started reading :

Very interesting paper which analyses the creativity managers within an electronics company supply-chain and compares this with their social connections. The hypothesis : being a "broker" between different social clusters tends to put you at a higher "risk" of good ideas than being in the centre of the social cluster.

Interestingly distinguishes four levels of "brokerage" between social clusters.

  • 1) informs one cluster of the existence of and needs of another
  • 2) brings ideas and "best practices" from one cluster to obviously similar situations in the other
  • 3) brings ideas and best practices from one cluster to less obviously similar situations in the other.
  • 4) sees oportunities for "synthesis" (synergy / co-ordination?) between the activities of the different clusters.

Thought : Not sure that the difference between 2 & 3 is the same type as between 1 & 2 or 3 & 4. Maybe there are two dimensions?

Is there anything beside the main hypothesis and the argumentation for it? (I don't want to diminish the role of scientific methodology, but I can trust you that it is sound) – ZbigniewLukasiak

: Er ... you can't trust me because I haven't finished reading the paper yet :-(

: – PhilJones

:: OK - I'll wait. – ZbigniewLukasiak :-)

::: And anyway, my grasp of ScientificMethodology was always pretty flaky. ;-) – PhilJones

:::: For sure it's better than mine:-) But you did not answer my question - should I read it or can I just accept the result and go on? Are there any new ideas in the body of argumentation or is it just a collection of evidence and logic reasoning? – ZbigniewLukasiak

:: I did finally read it ... and it has one bit of real research : correlating how creative managers thought their underlings were with their position in StructuralHoles ... it makes it's case in that the correlation comes out OK, but we have to accept "manager's opinion of good" as a proxy for "good" in the "good ideas" bit. So it's a start but I'd like to see more.–PhilJones