1. VISUALIZING
THE COMMUNICATION AT
SCAD LIFE
RESEARCH TEAM:
SAAD AQEEL Z. (DESIGN MANAGEMENT, SCAD)
AMIT BAPAT (INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, SCAD)
SEBASTIAN BURCHERT (UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE)
ALEXANDER LIEDER (UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE)
YILMAZ YESILIRMAK (UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE)

2. Research Team:
Saad Aqeel (MFA Candidate-Design Management, SCAD)
Amit Bapat (MFA Candidate-Industrial Design, SCAD)
Sebastian Burchert (Student ID: 3637239, University of
Cologne) Alexander Lieder (Student ID: 4023099,
University of Cologne) Yilmaz Yesilirmak (Student ID:
3967530, University of Cologne)

3. AGENDA:
1. Introduction
2. Motivation
3. Purpose
4. Research Question
5. Research Method & Data
6. Results
7. Lessons Learned

4. 1. Introduction
• In today’s businesses environment, efficiency and
productivity depend not only on properly structured
processes and effective IT support
• Increasingly also on the communication between teams
and groups
• In this context, Social network analysis can be a very
effective tool for promoting collaboration and knowledge
sharing within important groups in organizations

5. 2. Motivation
• Identify collaborative networks within and between
SCAD’s Schools of Design, and with external partners
• Collaboration in the field of arts and design is recognized
as a necessary indicator of innovation, and has been
identified as a strategic initiative for SCAD’s five-year QEP

6. 3. Purpose
• Create visual representations of social networks
• Prediction where collaborative networks are or can be
formed by using three most popular network measures:
• degree centrality
• closeness centrality
• betweeness centrality

7. 4. Research Question
1. What communication and collaboration patterns are
identifiable within the School of Design at SCAD?
2. How transparent is collaboration and communication
between individuals, departments and external
entities?
3. To what extent are collaboration networks reflected
among individuals, departments and external entities
within the School of Design?
4. What are the major obstacles facing collaborative
communication among different individuals,
department and external entities within the School of
Design?

8. 4. Research Question
Limitations:
• Unable to analyze real data from SCAD to answer
research questions
• IT-Department not providing us with SCAD data
because of privacy issues
• Low response rate

9. 5. Research Method and Data
Collection
1. SNA Tool (Condor)
2. Online Survey (Zoomerang)
3. Face to face interview
4. WORDiJ Software
5. SQL-Dumps as a base for the visualization

10. 5. Research Method and Data
Collection
1. Condor
• Used to analyze the social network
• Developed from the MIT, to analyze email archives, etc
• Once the data is loaded into Condor, you can create
graphs to visualize the communication within a group

11. 5. Research Method and Data
Collection
2. Online Survey
• Purpose:
• To investigate the potential of using SNA at SCAD’s
school of design
• Gain a holistic overview of the faculty’s experience in
building collaborative relationships
• Data Collection:
• The primary motivation for using the online web-
based approach was to collect and process data
quickly. In conducting this part, we used
zoomerang.com

12. 5. Research Method and Data
Collection
2. Online Survey
• The main challenge:
• To gain a representative sample of faculty and staff
members participating in the survey
• Problem:
• The response rate was very low. Total number of
visitors was twenty five; only eight respondents
completed the survey

13. 5. Research Method and Data
Collection
3. Interview
• The goal:
• Gather information about current communication
networks and the informal structure of School of
Design as represented in ongoing patterns of
interaction
• Data Collection:
• Interviews were conducted with two faculty
members from School of Design

14. 5. Research Method and Data
Collection
3. Interview
• Approach:
• Interviews consisted of an introduction
• Questions covering themes related to information
networks and collaborative relationships in
organizations
• Despite the structural nature of the interview,
interviewees were encouraged to discuss in an
open way about their experiences and views

15. 5. Research Method and Data
Collection
4. WORDij Software
Extensive help provided by:
Dr. James Danowski A WORD-PAIR APPROACH TO
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
University of Illinois, Chicago
• system based on a linkage or
network model for representing
textual information.
• fundamental unit of analysis is the
word pair, rather than the individual
Dr. Ken Riopelle term.
Wayne State University, Detroit
•http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec1/papers/10.txt

16. • How is WORDij different than Condor?
both represent a social network.
condor: node to node
wordij: database using selected key terms.
• wordij is more flexible than condor.
Utilizes other nodes besides email.
Advantage over condor. Words are
nodes and word linkages depicted while
condor has people as nodes and words
shared by the people are depicted.
• condor is for analysis of email and WORDij
is for
analysis of data.
• Why use WORDij?
Nature of the research demanded capabilities not
provided by condor.

17. Search Process
• Lexis Nexis Database
• over 2000 articles scanned
• optimal search term:
Savannah w/1 College w/1 of Art w/1 Design (power search)
• period of 4 years: Jan 25th 2005 to Jan 25th 2009
• all articles extracted in .txt format

18. Department of Advertising and Design / Advertising & Design Department/ Adler Hall/ Morris Hall
Department of Accessory Design/ Eckberg hall
Department of Animation/ Montgomery Hall
Department of Architectural History/ Arnold Hall
Department of Architecture/ Eichberg Hall
Department of Art History/ Arnold Hall
Department of Arts Administration/ Arnold Hall
Department of Broadcast Design and Motion Graphics /Montgomery Hall
Department of Cinema Studies/ Hamilton Hall
Department of Design Management/ Gulfstream Center for Furniture and Industrial Design/ Clifford Hall
Department of Fashion/ Henry Hall/ Eckberg hall Department of Fibers/ Gordon Hall
Department of Film and Television/ Adler Hall/ Hamilton Hall
Department of Furniture Design/ Gulfstream Center for Furniture and Industrial Design/ Clifford Hall
Department of Graphic Design/ Poetter Hall
Department of Historic Preservation/ Eichberg Hall
Department of Illustration/ Morris Hall
Department of Industrial Design/ Gulfstream Center for Furniture and Industrial Design/ Clifford Hall/ Fahm Hall/ Eichberg Hall
Department of Interactive Design and Game Development/ Montgomery Hall
Department of Interior Design/ Eichberg Hall
Department of Metals and Jewelry/ Fahm Hall
Department of Painting/ Alexander Hall
Department of Media and Performing Arts/ Crites Hall
Department of Photography/ Bergen Hall
Department of Printmaking/ Alexander Hall
Scad_dept.txt
Department of Production Design/ Crites Hall 34 SCAD Departments
Department of Professional Writing/ Arnold Hall
Department of Sculpture/ Boundary Hall with respective buildings
Department of Sequential Art/ Norris Hall
Department of Sound Design/ Hamilton Hall
Department of Teaching/ Wallin Hall
Department of Television Producing/ Crites Hall
Department of Urban Design/ Eichberg Hall
Department of Visual Effects/ Montgomery Hall
Department of Foundation Studies/ Anderson Hall/ Boundary Hall/ Wallin Hall

19. • Node size is a sign of network
centrality
• Thickness of line represents
frequency of contact
• Dept appearing first in article
points to the other dept
following in the article.
• Placement of nodes based on
optimal representation which
minimizes cross linkages.
2005-2006

20. 2006-2007

21. 2007-2008

22. 2008-2009

23. HOW TO MEASURE COLLABORATION:
• count total number of links/ number of nodes --
should increase over the years.
2005-2009 • also count the number of thick lines, which depict
an increase in degree of linkage.

24. • Conclusion
• Research accesses free information on the web.
• Task was to find what the press knows about these relationships
among departments. “Collaboration as seen through the eyes of
the press.” condor could not be used as it cannot parse words
• If the press are mentioning the 2 departments within an article:
then there is a better chance of collaboration
• Interpretation on collaboration? dramatic increase in last 2 yrs. i.e.
increase in the number of nodes that are linked and that links are
darker and stronger
• What is the pattern of communication? something is definitely
increasing not decreasing over time. Credibility in findings as data
is accessed through a public resource which is not internal
• How does scad use internal media to report collaboration?
Strength of this research lies in the ability to analyze how well SCAD
is communicating with the outside world on publicity and
collaboration. Data gathered could be used for coolhunting purposes:
federal grants, potential areas/depts to develop etc.

25. 6. Technical results:

26. 6. Technical results:
Screenshots of our Visualization Application
Limitations/Drawbacks:
- graph has to be completely connected
- edge length has no semantic meaning
- looks quite poor with too many egdes

27. 7. Lessons Learned
Success Rates of IT Projects
Resolution Type A, or project success:
The project is completed on-time and on-budget, with all
features and functions as initially specified. (34%)
Resolution Type B, or project challenged:
The project is completed and operational but over-budget,
over the time estimate, and offers fewer features and
functions than originally specified. (51%)
Resolution Type C,
or project impaired:
The project is cancelled at
some point during the
development cycle. (15%)

28. 7. Lessons Learned
Essential Factors for Successful Projects
► Clearly Defined Project Goal(s)
It took us very long to define realistic project goals.
We lost much time "running into wrong directions".
► Top Level Management Support
We were supposed to visualize & analyze communication
data from SCAD, but we have never had access to such
data.
 We had to use a dummy-mailbox as a temporary
solution for getting any data at all.

29. 7. Lessons Learned
Essential Factors for Successful Projects
► Expertise of Project Members
This was mainly an implementation project, but there was
no top-notch programmer in our team.
 We could not implement most of our ideas; those we
could implement were very time-consuming.
► Intense communication within the Group
 We underestimated the language barrier

30. 7. Lessons Learned
1. Condor