The Strength of Weak Ties Applied: Digital and Interpersonal Interactions with HCPs

Objective

In this post we discuss a new addition to the Strength of Weak Ties model and apply it to the relationship between healthcare and life science companies and healthcare professionals, opening new methods, initiatives and outcomes when leveraging the sharing of scientific content between these groups.

TL;DR

Narrowing and clarifying CARES (Context, Alignment, Reputation, Expectation of Effect, Signaling) within a social graph increases the ease and rate of information transmission across the graph, leading to stronger knowledge alignment and relationships.

Note: The original strength of weak ties model pertains mostly to the mapping of the relationships between tightly knit primary networks of people, rather than focusing on the definition of the tie between dyads of individuals. Here, we modify the theory to add further definition to the tie between individuals and explore the impact on transmission of information across networks within a work setting, to help understand the impact of those ties on the transmission of scientific information and clinical practice sharing between life science companies and HCPs.

What Makes a (Strong) Tie, and How is Life-Science Affected?

In a work setting, the tie between two individuals (known as a “dyad”) is more specifically defined than in the standard view of a dyad (which is usually based on time and quality of time spent and contributions to the relationship) by including more focused elements of the dyad:

  • Context/event of the relationship
  • The alignment and overlap of skills and backgrounds
  • The relative credibility and status of individuals (“reputation”)
  • The perceived possible effect on the relationship

Generally, a tie in a dyad is stronger when these elements have a higher degree of overlap. Life Science companies can increase the rate and ease of transmission of key messaging and positively impact clinical outcomes by gaining the trust of HCPs through better aligning their content, channels and communication strategies with semi-structured HCP networks.

CARES: Categorizing Work-Driven, HCP Network Formation

Foundationally, the goal of a work-based activity has a desired outcome and requires actors to complete it. To understand the strength of a tie in a work relationship, we must consider the following categories:

Context

The degree of specificity of the context of the relationship. For example, do the members of the relationship share the same functional role, or share the same industry environment?

Alignment

The degree of alignment in the skills and experiences of the dyad. For example, do the members of the relationship have similar work backgrounds, or education?

Reputation

The relative credibility of the members. For example, does each member have a high regard for the credibility of the other, or in lieu of direct experience, do the socially accepted norms of credibility apply to the relationship?

Expectation of Effect

The perceived effect of the relationship. For example, does each member have a strong belief that the relationship could have a positive effect on their personal context?

Signal

The degree of indication of intent by the individuals in the tie. Meaning - to what degree has intent to take action been indicated?

Illustrative Scenarios

Strong Tie Example: Scott and Mary

  • One is a pediatric neurosurgeon, the other a pediatric oncologist at different hospitals
  • Medical residencies overlapped, performed surgeries together
  • Respect each other’s skills and educational backgrounds
  • Refer patients to each other and recommend each other professionally
  • Limited personal interaction outside of professional context

Weak Tie Example: Francine APRN and Joseph

  • Francine is an APRN anesthetist, Joseph is an on-site help desk technician
  • Very different educational backgrounds, work contexts, and skills
  • Context-specific credibility (Joseph for tech, Francine for medicine)
  • Regular professional interaction with friendly rapport

Moderate Tie Example: Mike and Jane

  • Mike is an experienced Family Practice Physician who owned a practice
  • Jane is a young Radiologist with prior real estate experience
  • Different educational backgrounds and first-order skills
  • Recently met during a medical procedure

Applied Goals and Outcomes

When we apply specific goals to these relationships, we can evaluate the impact of the tie on outcomes:

Goal 1: Medical Device Sales

  • Mary and Scott (Strong Tie): Mary consults Scott about a new laparoscopic device; they agree to demo and test it together
  • Mary and Francine (Misaligned): Francine knows nothing about the device, leading to missed opportunity

Goal 2: Home Theatre Installation

  • Francine and Joseph (Weak but Aligned): Joseph connects Francine with his friend Frank who helps her
  • Francine and Mike (Misaligned): Mike’s lack of technical knowledge leads to Francine’s failed attempt

Goal 3: Starting a New Business

  • Jane and Mike (Moderate but Aligned): Mike’s business experience helps Jane launch her radiology practice
  • Jane and Joseph (Misaligned): Joseph’s limited business knowledge leads to Jane’s business failure

Why This Matters

To take advantage of any given work relationship, it is critical to correctly align the properties of the goal with the properties of the ties in the relationship that most closely positively impact the goal. For improving the alignment of a Life Science company with healthcare professionals, this becomes even more important.

Next Steps: Assessing CARES

Starting with a HCP’s scientific belief alignment to a Life Science Company’s objectives, you can evaluate messaging and contexts for potential improvements and evaluate suppliers for potential support.

We apply C.A.R.E.S. using analysis algorithms and data collection capabilities:

  1. Context: Narrow the context of the goal to something specific
  2. Alignment: Assess the actors relative to the goal and their skills and background
  3. Reputation: Assess the credibility of the actors relative to one another
  4. Effect: Assess the probable effect each actor will have on the goal
  5. Signal: Assess the desire of the dyad to develop the tie more fully

This framework allows us to determine if the actors in a given goal context should participate in accomplishing the goal, ultimately improving information transmission and relationship development.