For me, it seemed as if the human factor was built into the analysis because the people make the system. Without connectors, brokers, mediators, knowledge producers, etc. there would be no flows of information. Now I know this doesn't exactly address Mike's question about what companies are looking for and the assumption that all people are altruistic in their methods of sharing information and working. But, I think that it does speak to how this type of analysis can provide insight into the type of culture and conditions that can encourage employees to share knowledge, work to be brokers, etc.

So, yes, the system is made up of the employees, but the Ross et. al piece was quick to show when one employee (Cole) was particularly effective, but how that was not the best configuration for optimal corporate health. Additionally, Ross and company cited many instances where the architecture of the building (moving the management to a different floor) effected the flows of information through out the firm. I think that by recognizing the how the system influences the people within it, even through something as simple as a floor change shows just how dynamic the system, and those within it actually are.

It is the back and forth between the system itself and the people who create the system that interests me in this method. And I think that is where the people are in these analyses. If someone is an employee that is not that good at communication and/or just a slacker, it figures that their connectivity will be low. Then the questions come about why that connectivity is low, and efforts can be made to work on that individual or the system at that point.