Arguments of attrition aside, I don't agree with this model.
Maybe I'm not understanding what an edge is supposed to be, but the author implies that "something" is lost when the edge disappears. That doesn't make sense. Knowledge live in the node, not the edge. You don't just forget a project you worked on just because someone left. If you lose access to knowledge when someone leaves, that's because you did a bad job of preventing silos.
Further, someone who has deep domain knowledge is valuable even with 0 connections.
Unless every piece of knowledge is documented in a clean and understandable fashion, then the edge represents the ability for team members to collaborate with the node to either resolve issues or develop future improvements on the project. While you don't forget a project you worked on, it is unlikely that you worked on the specific pieces that others in your team were assigned to.
I thought the edges represented the strength of relationships between teammates. As people get to know each other, people settle into roles and communication patterns, worrying less about social status, complementing each other, making decisions faster, and anticipating each other. Time together makes good a team more effective.
Maybe I'm not understanding what an edge is supposed to be, but the author implies that "something" is lost when the edge disappears. That doesn't make sense. Knowledge live in the node, not the edge. You don't just forget a project you worked on just because someone left. If you lose access to knowledge when someone leaves, that's because you did a bad job of preventing silos.
Further, someone who has deep domain knowledge is valuable even with 0 connections.