https://doi.org/10.61152/HEJW8941
Michaela Bonnett1, Meaghan Kennedy1, Angela Ladetto2, Jasmine Fernandez1 and Teri Garstka3
1Orange Sparkle Ball, 2Detroit Regional Partnership, 3Social Innovation Labs, The University of Kansas
Series: Sunbelt 2024
Original Publication Date: June 25th, 2024
Publisher: Orange Sparkle Ball
Abstract
Network Analysis of a Mobility Ecosystem in Detroit, MI
Background
As part of a new initiative from the Global Epicenter of Mobility (GEM), organizations across many sectors in Detroit, MI, and surrounding counties are collaboratively investing in transforming the local legacy mobility industry into an inclusive advanced mobility cluster over the next 3 years. At the start of this initiative, in partnership with the research team at the Detroit Regional Partnership, a social network analysis was conducted to map the relationship between the foundational 24 organizations, the greater coalition, and their extended network to date. The organizations within this initiative were divided into 4 sectors that highlighted key differences in engagement This baseline map and relationship data, as well as key network analysis metrics, will be compared to future data collections over the coming years to track the initiative’s progress.
Methods
The original coalition (161 organizations) was identified by the local partner organization and data collection proceeded from September-December 2023 through survey completion. One or more representatives of coalition organizations were asked to identify their relationship to other members of the coalition using a 1-5 scale (Frey et al., 2006). Data were analyzed in R, and organization-level metrics, as well as centralized network-wide metrics, were produced for weighted betweenness, degree, and weighted degree centrality, as well as averages of connection strength. Maps were produced using KUMU software.
Findings
The mobility coalition consisted of 159 nodes and 7412 connections. Of those connections, 3763 (50.77%) had at least a level 1 connection strength, while 2319 (31.29%) had a connection strength of ≧ 3 (an active working relationship). The average connection strength for the network was 2.13. The coalition network was highly interconnected, with a clustering coefficient of 0.70 and a density of 0.59. Nonprofit and foundation organizations made up 47.5-50% of the top quartile by all centrality metrics while only making up 32.1% of the network. Corporate and private organizations made up 42.8% of the network and made up 68.42-82.50% of the bottom quartile across all metrics. The distribution of centrality scores of the corporate and private organizations was significantly lower than those of all other sectors within the network.
These results illuminate a network that is highly interconnected, but in which not all sectors are engaging equally. These results are being used to plan and implement strategic interventions to foster new relationships and growth within the network. In addition to the 159 coalition organizations, respondents to the survey identified an additional 244 organizations as active participants within the Detroit region mobility space. A select number of these organizations will be added to the coalition as it becomes established within the Detroit region. These provide directions for future growth of the GEM initiative and the mobility ecosystem network and are examples of turning research into action.
Citation List
D’Aveni, R. A., Gunther, R. E., & Cole, J. (2001). Strategic Supremacy: How Industry Leaders Create Growth, Wealth, and Power Through Spheres of Influence. Simon and Schuster.
Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring Collaboration Among Grant Partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214006290356
Garstka, T., & Kennedy, M. (2023a, September). Convening of Mapping Our Social Fabric: The Tech-Enabled Community Resilience Summit [Virtual Summit]. Mapping Our Social Fabric: The Tech-Enabled Community Resilience Summit, Online. https://www.tecresilience.com/
Garstka, T., & Kennedy, M. (2023b, October). Establishing a Responsive and Inclusive Governance Structure for Multi-Sector Technology and Data Collaborations [Conference Presentation]. US Census Bureau Data Innovation Summit, San Juan, Puerto Rico. https://datasymposium23.splashthat.com/
Greenwald, H. P., & Zukoski, A. P. (2018). Assessing Collaboration: Alternative Measures and Issues for Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(3), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017743813
Malatesta, D., & Smith, C. R. (2014). Lessons from Resource Dependence Theory for Contemporary Public and Nonprofit Management. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12181
Norris, F. H., & Stevens, S. P. (2007). Community Resilience and the Principles of Mass Trauma Intervention. Psychiatry, 70(4), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2007.70.4.320
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005). Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0152
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3
