How social a social networking platform can be
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

How social a social networking platform can be

on

  • 893 views

Presentation of my Master Thesis (Sept. 2011) giving an overview of my main conclusions concerning research performed on Mindz.com. Gives an insight into: ...

Presentation of my Master Thesis (Sept. 2011) giving an overview of my main conclusions concerning research performed on Mindz.com. Gives an insight into:
- The social factors at play in terms of design, collaborativeness and connectivity;
- The motivations behind sharing amonst multiple platforms due to collaborative features;
- The features needed in terms of design to drive Word-of-Mouth and letting this be the driver of adoption of a current/ new Social Networking Platform;
- Motivations to a strong advocation of a holistic view on social media and a platform approach for organizations.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
893
Views on SlideShare
893
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

How social a social networking platform can be Presentation Transcript

  • 1. If we build the people, they'll build the business
    Stef Karakasis introduces:
    A set of complimentary factors providing insights & applications for creating
    Paths of value through Online knowledge sharing.
  • 2. Background + Focus
    Social Networking has reached critical mass, how do we harness this for the business ?
    Study a behavourial outcome in a particular context and provide linkage between people, processes and outcomes on a greater scale.
  • 3. Context of the study =
    Big Question: What are the factors which influence the sharing of knowledge in Online Communities of Practice on a Social Networking Platform?
  • 4. Research approach
    Weapons of choice
    • Online survey fuelled trough blogging @ Mindz.com & spreading updates via Twitter;
    • 5. Over 2000 views on the 2 blogs describing the progress made resulting in collaboration with other 3 members of Mindz.com;
    • 6. Regression Analyses + Path analysis (SPSS AMOS) to contrast results.
  • Online trust drives on personal experiences and significantly impacts WOM behaviour.
    Context is key for Content.
    Online trust does not have a significant impact on satisfaction with regards to the platform.
  • 7. Interpersonal & Distributive justice matter the most for driving online trust.
    We are socialpeople. This is not new.
    You get what you give.
  • 8. User experience (Social & Design)
    Satisfaction and greater Satisfaction leads to greater
    Word-of-Mouth via (collaborative) features such as Weblogs.
  • 9. Most active members (Hubs) are those that are most likely to spread WOM and continue to share with others.
    Human engagement for brand preference & Loyalty building.
  • 10. Like slide from scot CFA
    Using an Social Networking Platform significantly impacts WOM behaviour online
    “ ...tools don’t get socially interesting until they get technologically boring.”
    - Clay Shirky
  • 11. Sharing is Caring
    Privacy will become a bigger concern. Justice online
  • 12.
    • Increase sample size through performing research across platforms;
    • 13. Collaborate with data mining (Clipit, StatSoft) & research companies (InSites) when going after focal relationships;
    • 14. Always go for the holistic view and iterate as much as you can;
    • 15. Talk to as much people from different backgrounds/ disciplines to gather insights & opinions;
    • 16. Most Social Networking Platforms amplify that what there are seeded with, whether this is
    promotional use (Mindz.com), social (Facebook) or transactional (Bitcoin);
    • WOM is the currency, since every customer is a potential journalist, brand spokesperson online.
    Get out of the Building!!!
  • 17. Back-up Slides
    Tested research model;
    Hypotheses
  • 18. Results Tested Model
    SocialROI = (Gains – Investment) = Mindz.com
    Investment
  • 19. Research Questions
    Sub questions:
    • How does justice theory influence satisfaction within an OCoP?;
    Positive, significant effect of justice on trust whereas interpersonal and distributive
    justice showed having a positive significant impact on trust.
    • How does trust in community members influence SNP satisfaction?;
    Trust does not have a significant impact on satisfaction concerning the SNP but does have a significant effect on WOM behaviour.
    • How does SNP satisfaction influence Word of Mouth behaviour?;
    In this research the effects of WOM and the current ways in which members use the SNP were various but satisfaction regarding the SNP significantly impacts WOM behaviour.
    • How do the outcomes of SNP satisfaction influence the continuation of knowledge
    sharing within an OCoP?
    Communities and networks of practice reflect effects of social influence in that individuals adopt and continue using SNPs to enhance their existing social structures and generate new business. The way
    members use the SNP, which could be self-promotion or relational activities, and how people respond to their personal efforts does impact their willingness to keep contributing to dialogue and possible collaboration with others.
  • 20. Hypotheses
    H1a: Justice is positively, significantly, related to SNP satisfaction - Accepted
    H1b: Justice is positively, significantly, related to the intention to keep on sharingonline - Accepted
    H1c: Distributive justice is positively, significantly, related to trust - Accepted
    H1d:Procedural justice is positively, significantly, related to trust– Rejected*
    H1e:Interpersonal justice is positively, significantly, related to trust – Accepted*
    H1f: Informational justice is positively, significantly, related to trust - Accepted
    H2a: Trust in members is positively, significantly, related to SNP satisfaction – Rejected**
    H2b: Trust in members is positively, significantly, related to Word-of-Mouth behaviour - Accepted
    H3: SNP satisfaction is positively, significantly, related to SNP uses - Accepted
    H4a: SNP uses is positively, significantly related to the intention to keep on sharing online - Accepted
    H4b: SNP uses is positively, significantly related to WOM behaviour - Accepted
    H5a: SNP satisfaction is positively, significantly, related to SNP WOM behaviour - Accepted
    H5b: SNP WOM behaviour is positively, significantly related to the intention to keep
    on sharing online- Accepted
    * Proc. (negative) & Interp. Justice turned out to be non-significant in the regression analysis.
    ** Justice  Continuance of sharing: weaker significant effect in regression then path analysis.