 Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger brought the term Communities of Practice (CoPs) into the limelight in the early 1990s. The existence of CoPs existed before this time, identified variously as “learning networks, thematic groups, or tech clubs”.1 Over the last decade, organisations and businesses have scratched their heads over how to tap into the potential of this concept - with varied levels of success. But first, what are CoPs, and are they still a viable construct?
(image allowed for re-use by WebWizzard)
Put simply, “communities of practice (CoPs) bring together like-minded individuals and/or organizations with a common purpose. They foster learning through information sharing”.2 CoPs are unique groups and can be identified by the presence of three elements 1) a domain of knowledge which defines a set of issues; 2) a community of people who care about this domain; 3) a shared practice that they develop to be effective in this domain.1,2 Additionally, original proponents like Wenger view these as self-organising, voluntary communities.
In practical terms, Wenger provides these examples of typical activities in a CoP1:
- Problem solving
- Requests for information
- Seeking experience
- Reusing assets
- Coordination and synergy
- Discussing developments
- Documentation projects
- Visits
- Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps
These activities are neither new nor innovative. As Wenger explains, “communities of practice have been around for as long as human beings have learned together”.1 You can find examples in government, business, education, associations, just to name a few - they exist everywhere. It is the recognition of the value that CoPs can potentially bring to an organisation that has sparked the research, discussion, and analysis of case studies.
Businesses, in particular, see communities of practice as a useful way to manage and develop intellectual capital. IBM is a highly cited example in this case, where in 1995 they began a large-scale implementation of CoPs as part of their knowledge management program - at one time there were over 60 communities spread all around the globe.3
Important factors in the general understanding of a CoP lies in its autonomy, informality, self-organisation, ability to cross organisational boundaries, and focus on practice. The aspect of autonomy and self-organisation is important, as the agenda and activities are defined by the members themselves. Businesses often make the mistake of trying to direct CoPs towards an organisational goal, and this can have the detrimental effect of pushing the group underground or dissolving it altogether.3 Another common misconception is that technology alone is enough to create, nurture and sustain a CoP. Kimble and Hildreth caution that “the difficulty of building, and maintaining the strong social ties needed to build a sense of community in a virtual environment should not be underestimated”.4
Communities of practice are understood as organic and dynamic, and as such have recognised stages of development, or what Wenger calls the CoP life-cycle. Wenger called his five stages 1) Potential - beginning and initialisation; 2) Coalescing - group starts to define itself and gain structure; 3) Active - peak period where the group is fully engaged in its common activities; 4) Dispersed - level of active engagement has dropped but members still participate and 5) Memorable - groups have reached the end of the life-cycle.5 Some groups may progress through these stages, possibly moving forwards and backwards, some never moving beyond the initial first two stages.
Gongla and Rizzuto judged the success of a CoP by the stage it had reached. Their research found mixed levels of success. “Communities that failed typically never had a firmly-defined domain, had difficulty collecting and maintaining knowledge generated by the community, and lacked a facilitator focused on helping the community be successful”.3 Hemmasi and Csanda cite other studies that point to the importance of having an engaged and active leader, relevancy of the shared domain of interest, technology literacy of members and ideally - organisational support.6 Gustavo Guzman found in his research that sharing knowledge was problematic in hostile environments; he studied the sharing of practical knowledge in the bio-pharmaceutical industry.7
Reading the literature on the social learning construct of communities of practice, one is struck by the variety of definitions; the case studies suggest that there is no one model to follow in trying to build such a group. Chris Kimble explains that “since [1991], the notion of a CoP has now been expanded to encompass a far wider range of groups. The term Communities of Practice (CoPs) has now been applied to a range of different groups, from project teams to functional departments. There have also been several attempts to redefine CoPs in such a way that they are relevant to the needs of commercial organizations and attempts by some management consultancies to formalize methods to create them”.8 Kimble also expresses concerns about whether CoPs are suitable in business environments and whether they can truly exist as purely virtual communities (see Communities of Practice: Going One Step Too Far?) .
Communities of practice have always existed and will continue to evolve. They may not be recognised by the same terminology, but reflect the original social learning concepts that Wenger and Lave built their theories on. Some observers believe CoPs are a social phenomena rather than a methodology that can be artificially constructed (see CPSquare). While Wenger and Lave began with a tightly defined view of what did or did not constitute a CoP, the literature shows a broader view and also that there are other social learning and organisational learning constructs which are valuable to knowledge management (e.g. knowledge ecology, narrative/storytelling; models for community development).
Moxy Knowledge Management sees the potential of drawing from the knowledge building and social learning concepts of CoPs and applying them to community development projects. We support the view that “many innovative developments come from making knowledge connections across different disciplines and organisational boundaries”.2 To achieve this, we are using open source collaborative technology to help connect scientists, community and business experts and government units; all working towards a common goal. One of our ongoing projects is an initiative of Bon-Eco in Tamworth, Canada. The goal is to build long-term rural community sustainability (see Small town revitalisation takes off in Tamworth, Eastern Canada). Our project has brought together experts from both Australia and Canada, who use our knowledge management infrastructure to develop their intellectual and social capital. Using a combination of our tools and methodologies to build further on the concept of community of practice, we hope to demonstrate the scalability of such a project to the larger community.
References
- Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: a Brief introduction. Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/.
- Walker, G. (2008). Communities of practice, networks & technologies : the dynamics of knowledge flows within third sector organisations in the North East of England. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10145/95685.
- Gongla, P. & Rizzuto, C.R. (2001). Evolving communities of practice: IBM Global Services experience. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 2001. Retrieved from http://old.disco.unimib.it/simone/gestcon/exp_comunities.pdf.
- Kimble, C. & Hildreth, P. (2006). The Limits of communities of practice. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.) Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information and knowledge management (pp. 327-334). London: Idea Group.
- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml.
- Hemmasi, M & Csanda, C.M. (2009). The effectiveness of communities of practice: an empirical study. Journal of Managerial Issues. Retrieved from http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/202072970_1.html.
- Guzman, G. (2008). Sharing Practical Knowledge in Hostile Environments: A Case Study. Journal of Workplace Learning 20(3), 195-212. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/handle/10072/20285
- Kimble, C (n.d.) Communities of practice: the Social dimension to the virtual world? Retrieved from http://www.chris-kimble.com/Courses/mis/Communities_of_Practice.html.
|
