Creating Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs) to Reduce Infant Mortality

Part of the Studies on Entrepreneurship, Structural Change and Industrial Dynamics book series (ESID)


This case study illustrates the growth process of a collaborative innovation network in healthcare. It tracks e-mail communication of COIN members through a method we call “virtual mirroring”, and measures the online perception of the topics of the COIN by coolhunting on social media such as Twitter and blogs. It also describes how the COIN members through “coolfarming” self-organize and identify new sub-topics for their work. In particular, the paper describes the growth process of the US Department of Health and Human Services Infant Mortality CoIIN (Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network), applying both improvement and innovation concepts to reducing infant mortality among disadvantaged families in the US.


  1. Barr, S. H., & Conlon, E. J. (1994). Effects of distribution of feedback in work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brönnimann, L. (2014). Analyse der Verbreitung von Innovationen in sozialen Netzwerken. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland. See also
  3. Everett, M., & Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Ego network betweenness. Social Networks, 27(1), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gesell, S. B., Barkin, S. L., & Valente, T. W. (2013). Social network diagnostics: A tool for monitoring group interventions. Implementation Science, 8, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm creativity. Competitive advantage through collaborative innovation networks. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gloor, P. A. (2011). Coolfarming: Turn your great idea into the next big thing. New York: AMACOM.Google Scholar
  7. Gloor, P. A., Margolis, P., Seid, M., & Dellal, G. (2014). CoolfarmingLessons from the beehive to increase organizational creativity. MIT Sloan School Working Paper No. 5123-14.Google Scholar
  8. Gloor, P. (2016). What e-mail reveals about your organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(2), 8.Google Scholar
  9. Gloor, P. A. (2017a). Sociometrics and human relationships: Analyzing social networks to manage brands, predict trends, and improve organizational performance. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gloor, P. A. (2017b). Swarm leadership and the collective mind: Using collaborative innovation networks to build a better business. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gloor, P. A., Oster, D., Raz, O., Pentland, A., & Schoder, D. (2010). The virtual mirror: Reflecting on the social and psychological self to increase organizational creativity. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40(2), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gloor, P. A., Colladon, A. F., Grippa, F., & Giacomelli, G. (2017a). Forecasting managerial turnover through e-mail based social network analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gloor, P., Colladon, A. F., Giacomelli, G., Saran, T., & Grippa, F. (2017b). The impact of virtual mirroring on customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 75, 67–76. Scholar
  14. Grippa, F., Gloor, P. A., Bucuvalas, J. C., & Palazzolo, M. (2012). Supporting development efforts of clinical care teams. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, 2(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effects of goal setting, external feedback, self-generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance. A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcos de Oliveira, J., & Gloor, P. (2016). The citizen is the journalist: Automatically extracting news from the Swarm. In Proceedings of the 6th International COINs Conference on Designing Networks for Innovation and Improvisation, June 9–11, 2016, Rome, Italy (Springer Proceedings in Complexity).Google Scholar
  18. Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns. New Scientist, 211(2828), 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001 (p. 71). Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Ramos, C. M. (2007). Organizational change in a human service agency. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(1), 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zilli, A., Grippa, F., Gloor, P., & Laubacher, R. (2006). One in four is enough–strategies for selecting ego mailboxes for a group network view. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Complex Systems ECCS (Vol. 6, pp. 25–29).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Sloan Center for Collective IntelligenceCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations