Wenger, Etienne, & McDermott, Richard, & Snyder, William M. (2002). Communities of Practice and Their Structural Elements. In Cultivating Communities of Practice (chap 2). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
The second chapter is about structure
of community of practices. Some attributes of community of practice
are: size, life span, location, homogeneity, organization span,
official status. The attributes help us identify the community of
practice from other communities; considering that all organization
inevitably have some communities.
The basic structure of community of
practice consists of three elements: domain, community and practice.
Domain is the common
ground shared by the members. Domain is not a end result (e.g. a web
site) but a benchmark that requires sustained learning (e.g. web site
usability). Members of the community should be committed to the
domain. Communities of practice succeed when the domain bridge the
individual aspirations with the business goals of the company.
Community is the people
and their relationships. I think it refers to the social network
within the community. When members build trust it becomes easier to
find the experts and ask for help. To retain the relationship,
members need to have sustained interactions. Within the community
members will take unique roles that may or may not be clearly
defined. Communities change in structure depending on their size.
They can be dense, fluid or segregated as their size increases. Since
personal passion of the members is critical for the community,
voluntary participation is ideal. But encouragement and coercion can
help the growth of the community.
Practice refers to
socially defined ways of doing things. It includes the artifacts
created and shared by the community like documents, tools, theories.
It is the rules of interaction that keeps the community together.
Activities of the community that result in some artifacts like
documents are equally important as the artifact. Members learn from
the interaction as much as from the documents. This act also
baselines the knowledge of the community, spurring the members to
work on higher problems.
Authors have contracted communities of
practice with familiar organizational structures like business units,
project teams, professional associations - to highlight other
structural features of communities of practice. The primary purpose
of community of practice is to develop knowledge. Members share
interest and knowledge while having a commitment to their domain.
Finally the authors have listed some
questions whose answers will aid the practical implementation of the
communities of practice.
This chapter gave me the blueprints of
communities of practice; moving towards practical implementation. My
concern is the conflicting nature of the implementation. The first
chapter gave a very open, joyous view of these communities. I think
forcing a structure and giving an official stamp to the community
might disperse the crowd. In the end I think we have to tread a line
between a rigid and flexible structure.
In chapter 2 of the Wenger et al. reading, the authors describe several common attributes of communities of practices, including its size, life span, physical structure, membership, relationship within organizations, and establishment. This is to illustrate the fact that these communities can be established under (and for) a myriad of different circumstances and settings. However, Wenger et al. propose that all communities share three structural elements, which the authors describe in terms of 1) domain, 2) community, and 3) practice. I like to think of these three elements as the 1) background knowledge and shared understanding, 2) the researchers, students, and practitioners, and 3) the developed (and developing) best practices, of a specific area in a specific field.
To me, Wenger et al.’s explanation of how communities of practices differs from other communities became especially clear when communities of interests was mentioned (page 43-44). In other words, communities of practices are not simply about groups of enthusiasts having shared interests in certain topics. However, what is troubling to me is how Wenger et al. recognize that individuals have varying incentives for joining, but at the same time expect domain, community, and practice to be developed in parallel. To me it seems like these three elements will inevitably be weighed differently across each community of practice. For instance, a open source development forum may care more about having an extremely robust community (to encourage innovation, facilitate exchange of ideas, and etc), while a community concerned with a more close-minded domain might care deeply about having clear, well-defined practices. However, I actually can’t think of a good example. Perhaps I am thinking in the wrong direction?
I think Geoff brings up a good point, which is that Wenger etal, do not address the "start-up" phase of communities of practice. Once the communities exist, we see domain, community, and practice. But how do these develop at the inception of a CoP? Is community needed first (a social network of people who know and trust one another)? A little bit of all three? I would be interested in seeing what constitutes the optimal hotbed for communities of practice.
Again, I agree with Erin's point. This is the second chapter of a business document written to help business cultivate communities of practice in their organization. The large portion of this chapter was on the three fundamental elements of a community of practice: domain of knowledge, which defines a set of issues, a community of people who care about the domain, and the shared practice they are developing to be effective within the domain (27). This is all to stress that when a community is working well with all of these elements, the community is more effective at developing and sharing knowledge (29). The authors stress the interaction of communities when they say that communities aren’t merely websites or databases, but “a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment” (34). The chapter ends with a good table on p. 42 differentiating communities of practice from other structures within businesses.
Given that, though, this chapter still felt largely redundant--what once the authors outlined the 3 main elements they largely beat them to death without adding new insight. I did use this chpater as the text to see the othe articles for this week through, though, and it was interesting to see how often the idea of smaller subgroups came up in nearly every reading.
Submitted by Daniel Zhou on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 13:21.
1
point
I think Erin pointed out an interesting question: which one of domain, community or practice is the determinant factor in the inception of a CoP? It's almost as interesting as the chicken-egg problem :) Maybe we can design an experiment to study it?
Submitted by Matt Adamo on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 18:55.
1
point
It may be true that the three different elements Wenger describes (domain, community, practice) could be weighed differently across different communities of practice. However, this means that even communities of practice with the same or similar domains could place different values on each element. So the open source development forum proposed above might emphasize community while another open source development forum emphasizes practice. In fact, Wenger mentions that even different members within the same community may be more interested in certain elements over others, which could make it even more difficult to determine the values of a community as a whole.
The way that Wenger differentiates CoPs from other communities though it seems like he is favoring the practice over the community. But since this is largely written from a business perspective that shouldn't be too surprising.
At my recent job working for sapient consulting we would have regular teleconferences where specific groups with mutual interests would have discussions as highlited in chapter 2. We would have a creative design europe call or a site development germany call where we would share latest news, updates on projects or discuss individual ideas. The bigger the audience the more uni-directional the participation would be.
According to the chapter these calls were mostly heterogenous but across multiple levels of boundaries.
Due to timezone differences and the nature of the business these would be intentional at predefined times. These phonecalls were highly institutionalized.
However there was a unrecognized informal meeting up to two times a month were people would get together for after work socializing where everybody brought food. These events were often quite valuable in terms of collaboration and exchange of information.
Another way to exchange knowledge was the use of email distribution lists which was used probably most often but due to the unfiltered broadcasting of information to "almost" everyone i don't think it was as successful. It was sufficient for getting quick answers on simple topics, but people could hardly identify progress of a discussion and it was extremly difficult to refer back to knowledge contained in those "inbox threads".
In this chapter, the author is modeling the structure for most communities despite of the form and as he pointed out the basic model he has structured consists of three elements, that are domain community and practice. According to the author, Domain is the base of a community and it also inspires its members to contribute and participate, guides their learning and gives meaning to their actions. Community is an important element in that it could foster interactions and relationships based on mutual respect and may encourage willingness to contribute and share. And much easier to understand is the last concept of practice as author mentions that practice is the specific knowledge the community develops, shares and maintains. As we are all involved in one virtual community or another, it is pretty straightforward and easy to catch the ideas when try to think of real life examples. In addition, author tried to distinguish community with business and other functional units from the primary purpose perspective and also the different between community of practice which is more loosely connected and informal with general communities, project teams, informal networks etc.
In chapter 2, Wenger et al. analyze three fundamental elements of any Community of Practice, namely Domain, Community, and Practice. Briefly: Domain defines a set of issues to be discussed and gives identity to a community; A Community is a set of people who are passionate about these issues. It encourages willingness to exchange ideas about the domain; Practice is the specific knowledge that the community develops, shares, and maintains.
The reading gives a convincing argument about the necessity of all three elements for the success of any Community of Practice. Towards the end, comparisons are also drawn between the communities of practice and other structures such as business units, project teams, and professional associations, among others.
However, Unlike for other structures, It has been said that Communities of Practice evolve and end organically, that their belongingness is entirely self-selected based on its users' passion and commitment to domain, and that their expertise is the only thing that holds them together. In other words, they have been explained to be a living entity that will exist as long as there is relevance for the domain, and value and interest in learning together. I question: If Community of Practices are so organic, and if they cannot be controlled in the way the formal business units and project teams can, then what role or control do the designers and managers of such communities have on the success, health and longevity of the Community of Practices? Can the three fundamental entities be thoughtfully 'designed' to produce the desired balance in Communities?
Submitted by Tracy Liu on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 13:22.
0
points
Chapter2 introduces all kinds of communities of practice and three structural elements of a community of practice including domain, community and practice.
In the aspect of the relationship between communities of practice and official organizations, I am wondering the effect of organizations on such practical communities, especially inside the business. For instance, how members’ response to the interruption of organization power on their community, will it bring positive incentive to individuals’ contribution when such community is recognized or promoted by official organizations?
While we realize the effect of such community on the production of organizations, how about their function on the relationship between members, which I think has further influence on the structure of organizations. For instance, the community of practice entitles new identity to their members besides their traditional identity in organizations; therefore, it enhances the probability of success for future collaboration in/between organizations
I am (but on sabbatical) part of the community of central bank webmasters. Have I mentioned this before? The community is made of, well, webmasters of the central bank kind. An interesting characteristic of this community is that I was the only one in my organization, and many organizations are like this. FRB-NY had 2. BIS in Switzerland had 4. The community in effect is so dispersed, globally in fact, but it was able to function due to the same type of vocation and interest.
As we were technologist/communicators in an organization focused on economics and finance, I can safely say that organizations (our employers) do not really affect us. Admittedly, the organization policy do come into play, but that does not generally hinder how we work. The COP was alive with ideas being shared, people coming together to work on data dissemination standards, etc.
Incentive? It wasn't necessary because we were passionate. Well, I did use "being a member of the COP" as an advantage over others in my department.. that's good enough incentive to get bonuses.. :-D
Wenger et al Ch.2 focuses on three structural elements: Domain, community, and Practice. These three threads are weaved tightly together and should be balanced. Wenger et al said “Focusing too much on one, while neglecting the others can be counterproductive.”
I found answers to my question that what motivate people to contribute within communities of practices. An example in page 29 describes that Arlene has a commitment to share her insights to the practice of her community. When I read this, I was curious where the commitment comes from at first. Then, I found a possible answer in following paragraphs. I especially like the paragraph in page 37: “They know that their own contribution will come back to them…it is a pool of goodwill-of “social capital,” …that allows people to contribute to the community while trusting that at some point, in some form, they too will benefit.” In my opinion, people who ask for help can get assist. Also, people who provide help can get others in return sooner or later. In other words, users may benefit mutually in the community.
Although these concepts are useful to understand the structure of communities of practices, I still feel some descriptions might be too ideal to be true.
This chapter is getting in more detailed about communities of practice, by providing the triple-aspect structure: domain, community, and practice. In particular, it gets through the idea of how the dynamic of knowledge structure is taking place, which I thought it is valuable in all considerations about community evaluation and design. It reminds me much of the concept of distributed cognition and I would like to think the knowledge structure in the community of practice is actually mapping to a kind of more intense and effective cognitive interaction and augmentation; which is embedded in the dense interrelations in the community network.
Especially in those kinds of communities of practices as defined in this chapter, this cognitive process participants were involved seems to be even more crucial. Actually for the instance mentioned about Xerox’s tech supporting forum, there had been the problem of under-contribution: only 1/5 users have contributed to tips. So if the problem cannot be solved effectively, it may lead to the unbalance of input/output of system and hard to keep growing: like a man cannot get enough nutriment. On the other hand, just looking at the big number of users who take advantage of the forum, we could see how effectively the system can help users to transform the common nutriment into their own expertise and get improved. The forum is just a material space of the knowledge structure dynamic.
The way that communities of practice are described in this chapter remind me a bit of academia. The main goal is to share knowledge and ideas in the hopes that larger problems can be solved as a result.
I like how communities of practice are in a way self-validated because they exist. The fact that they don't just lose steam shows that people have enough of an interest and stake in them that they really are useful.
Communities of Practice
So far I really like Wenger. This chapter spent more time looking at the components of communities of practice I generally felt that his insights were very beneficial in analyzing CoPs. In particular I thought that the implications for the model were interesting. Before reading this I hadn’t really considered the benefits of being a practitioner of over having an interest in domain. The section on informal networks vs. Cops (pg 43) was a very interesting look at the advantages of CoPs.
However, I did make me wonder if there isn’t inherent value in being interested in a domain and not being a practitioner. Is it possible that having an outside perspective on a domain is more valuable in certain circumstances? I think that often having an outside perspective can be beneficial to community. Not as steward of knowledge for the domain but as active contributors it seems that this could certainly be advantageous.
I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.
Submitted by LizBlankenship on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 23:01.
0
points
I find Jared's point about domain vs. practice to be an interesting one, and I think it relates to what I want to say about Wikipedia as a community of practice.
I found Wenger et al's emphasis upon CoPs' key activity being the creation of something (best practices, documentation, etc.) evoked images of Wikis and open source software development communities. These must certainly be CoPs because they have a domain (whether it be creating software or a collaborative encyclopedia or other living document), a community (there must be communication and relationships build for the collaboration to take place), and a practice (the activity of devoting effort to creating something).
And yet this seems a bit different from the CoPs that are more of a peripheral group to the main activities of employment, such as the Chrysler communities trying to enhance engineering practices.
This is where Jared's point comes in - perhaps you can have a CoP that uses some crowdsourcing in addition to the regular contributions of regular Wikipedian practitioners. Perhaps those who contribute their efforts in small quantities contribute from outside community of practice by sharing the domain and less so the practice or community since they may only fix typos, not really familiarizing themselves with the larger process or the other members of the community as much as those regulars. But then I think this lends itself to saying that there is simply a continuum of involvement.
In any case, I think Wikipedia is an interesting example to consider, and I hope that we discuss it in the context of a CoP in class.
I would like to echo the notion that outside perspectives may constitute another valuable type of community of practice. Although I followed Wenger and found the concept of CoP's promising, I am increasingly wary of further and further specializationa and insular professional communities that may lead both to growth, but also to homogeneity.
On another note, I struggled somewhat with the distinction between informal networks and CoPs. There is a lot of cross-over, it seems. At prior positions I've had, I've seen hybrid groups that seem to have elements of both. For example, my boss directed a large longitudinal study and had a loose network with other longitudinal-folk around the world with which he collaborated.
Sometimes this group would have conference calls just to catch up, other times some shared venture like a grant would be involved. There was a lot of comraderie and knowledge sharing that was both open and structured. I'm not sure pure communities of practice could abound with too much regularity in most of the professional environments in which I've worked. There is too little time to form them in addition to maintaining other forms of networking facilitated through work.
Jared asks a really good question about the value of having some outside perspective on a domain. Extending this idea to adjacent domains, or same domains (but broader definitions), or people with depth in multiple domains (but not necessarily practitioners) is a proven technique for coming up with new ideas - an innovation strategy. So.. it is absolutely valuable, but I don't know where it fits in the Wenger model. Ideo has a whole theory about hiring "T" shaped people, who have deep expertise in 2 fields, as well as people who are good at spanning fields and cross-fertilization. A book called the Ten Faces of Innovation goes into this in detail.
I really like the Wegner article and found it much more informative than Kim or Powazek. That said, it is obviously designed to sell his ideas to companies and it doesn't take a critical approach. I know that a lot of these kinds of efforts, including knowledge management system, have been hugely disappointing for companies, and that kind of information isn't coming through in the article. I'm wondering where this communities of practice idea stands today. Was it hyped and then did it disappoint, or has it been accepted as something that companies should definitely try to foster?
In last week's reading, one of the examples that Wenger used was Proctor and Gamble using communities of practice to apply technology innovation across product lines. Recently, I read an article about Proctor and Gamble's innovation efforts, and they've created a design-thinking education for managers across the company. They have also created a special design-thinking board to help them with innovation. This board is comprised of people who are very creative thinkers in their own fields (all design related), but people who have nothing to do with consumer packaged goods. Proctor and Gamble doesn't feel that it has this design/creative skill and expertise in-house. I found this illustrative, and I think that it perhaps shows a limitation of the communities of practice idea as put forth by Wenger.
This reading presented, for me, a new perspective on communities, albeit a somewhat laborious one. An intriguing aspect of communities of practice, and what distinguishes them from many of the other communities presented in the readings thus far is that for communities of practice, the community is on the periphery. The community is being developed, principally to aid and improve a specific practice (through concerted effort in a specific domain). The heart of the exercise is the practice, which provides a clear distinction from, say, 'third places', where community seems to exist for community's sake.
This distinction suggests that CoPs are the type-A communities... they meet to resolve problems and to accomplish goals. In this regard, the backseat role of these communities to their practices seems to imply dimished emphasis on relationships between members. I would be interested to know whether communities of practice generally have shorter lifespans. Of course, this does not necessarily have to be the case. An argument could be made that the common ground (domain/practice) among members of these communities may actually accelerate or enforce bonds, despite the focus on activity rather than socialization.
In any light, this perspective on communities is a valuable one, as it reinforces the reading from Kim that suggested that any online community should be developed with a clear purpose. This is quite clearly accomplished through 'practice', which is differentiated from and (in this reading) seemingly superior to the community itself.
Submitted by John Blair on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 22:40.
0
points
John Blair
For me, this simple quote highlighted the article. While there was able examples of pitfalls and success stratgies like in the other readings, this statement defined a community of practice for me. this is the bottom line.
Submitted by Sean Munson on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 22:44.
1
point
Overall, I liked this chapter. The main points of the chapter have been extensively discussed by others above, so I will limit my comments on that to perhaps a reply or to. I did want to draw some attention to another part of the chapter, though.
I think the first section (communities of practice take many forms, 24-27) offers some additional ways of characterizing communities that will be useful as students describe the communities they are studying this semester. Particularly, as we get to the design claims section of the course, it may be helpful to think about these characteristics as way of bounding design claims: while it may be hard to say that "design choice x produces behavior y in online communities," we may have an easier time making and supporting claims such as "design choice x produces behavior y in online communities that exist soley within a business and across business units," or "design choice x produces behavior y in online communities that exist are instititutionalized (sponsored/hosted/designed by a company or organization related to the topic, e.g. a tech support forum/wiki hosted by the associated company) but not in unrecognized communities (e.g., a tech forum/wiki hosted by a group of enthusiasts)."
Wenger et al's characteristics are not the only ways of bounding all communities, and some apply better to communities of practice than other metaphors for online communities, but they are a good start.
Wenger et al describe yet another triad in a somewhat light and repetitive business-oriented chapter.
First, the "domain," or topic, provides common ground and common identity. This domain is not static but evolves. Elsewhere they delve more deeply into the when/why/how's of this evolution.
Second, the community fosters interactions and relationships. This community consists of regular interactions.
The authors note the value of diversity (vs. homogeneity), as well as noting benefits associated with size, forms of reciprocity, and general openness.
Third, practice is constituted by the shared knowledge around specific activities. Participants who acquire expertise in practice (should) gain reputation in the community.
Finally, the authors include a section to distinguish CoP's from other structures (summarized in a table). There seems to be little difference between CoP's and Communities of Interest (even in the table).
As an afterthought, there are a number of interesting footnotes:
Footnote 6 relates Dewey and Bourdieu on "practice"
Footnote 14 mentions the anthropological 50-member limit, and Gladwell
Footnote 17 refers to Putnam (Bowling Alone, and Making Democracy Work) and "generalized reciprocity"
and most interestingly
Footnote 26 mentions even more triads that occur in both Judaism and Buddhism
-------------------------------------------------------- PHartzog@umich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
--Muriel Rukeyser
Wenger et al begin by detailing varied forms that may arise in a Community of Practice.
○ Small Or Big - as communities grow, they divide into sub-groups to maintain close relationships
○ Long-lived or short-lived - long-running and nascent communities both share start-up time for developing a practice
○ Co-located or Distributed - shared practices allow members to share knowledge despite proximity
○ Homogeneous or heterogeneous - people with differences may share similar problems
○ Inside and Across Boundaries - communities of practice may open paths between different organizations
○ Spontaneous or Intentional - problems drive the need for relationships and don't have base levels of formality
○ Unrecognized to institutionalized - communities of practice may or may not be sanctioned
Wenger et al continue by detailing a structural model for domain, community, and practice:
○ Domain - The common ground members share, a topic of interest.
○ Community - "social fabric of learning"? The authors claim what a community does, but don't define what a community is. For example, a box "does" hold things, but is a container.
○ Practice - knowledge shared by community members
Exploring domain further, the authors note shared domains foster accountability to the continued development of its practice. Common ground - or what members all understand about a shared domain - is the core reason for a community of practice to exist. Because domains evolve over time, possibly with a "half-life of eighteen months", members advance their understanding through consistent engagement with one another. As the concept of community is examined, the authors offer their most specific definition of the term - "a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment." They also emphasize that regular interaction is a prerequisite for community building. Their analysis of practice defines some practical tasks for knowledge communities, like establishing "a baseline of common knowledge" for all members, exploring ideas, and clarifying and documenting their knowledge for future use. The key elements of documentation include "definitions, models, methods, and stories."
I'm hopeful this self-promoting chapter helps our class establish a "baseline of common knowledge" before getting into objective case studies.
It is interesting that Wenger et al. are trying to distinguish among different "groups" in an organization. While most distinctions they made are reasonable, I am not quite sure about the "community of interest" and "informal network". Even from Table 2-2. they look quite similar, especially if all three groups are with online presence. Though they said that domain is what makes a community of practice different from the other two, however, without formal recognition or support from an organization, the three could be alike. I think it's possible for a community of interest or informal network to transform into a community of practice, or even the other way around. It may be a good idea to see whether there are such cases out there.
Submitted by Daniel Zhou on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 13:36.
0
points
This chapter mainly talks about the three elements of the structure model of CoP: domain, community and practice. From that perspective, the chapter also distinguishes CoP from other organizational units or groups. Overall, after reading this piece, I have a deeper understanding of the charateristics of CoP, which will serve as a basis for my future research.
Am I the only one who was a bit disappointed by this reading? Beyond the bloat of discussing communities, practices, and domains, and all the self-admitted "fuzziness" of explaining that communities of practice have no one definition because they can take so many forms, I find that this chapter can be distilled into the following:
Communities of practice = colleagues who talk.
Talking with your colleagues is good. You can help each other out and learn from each other. This is even better when your company supports your efforts. But your success in the end depends on how much effort you voluntarily put into it.
Beyond this, the chapter just seems to reiterate upon these themes. But is this anything more than just selling an idea to companies, as has been mentioned by Ami? In other words, is there actually anything here worth studying?
I found this chapter of Wenger interesting enough to go out and purchase the book for a couple of people who I work with. Trying to build community is such a dark art that even this relatively modest contribution of identifying three "pillars" is a good step in sensemaking the phenomenon. I believe this chapter does a fine job at identifying structure in these communities -- it fits well with examples of this online, eg PerlMonks.org.
I think that one key element often neglected by creators is the "community" pillar -- or introspective features of the site. So many proported communities of practice focus so much on domain and practice that they forget that people are very interested in one another, in addition to the material at hand. In good online communities of practice a users profile page can be as informational and helpful as specific howtos and practice-based guidelines.
Submitted by Satyendra on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 01:11.
0
points
Wenger’s analysis of a community around the three parameters of domain, community and practice is interesting as for now we see the first hints of the careful analysis of a community coming into the readings. Wenger also broadly touches upon the different aspects which might be interesting in the three different parameters.
He also mentions this breakdown can have implications of a structured model to study an online community. I am not so convinced about his other claim though that it tell us which area we need to focus on so we can concentrate on that. I believe while we can abstract the study of the community into the three dimensions for ease of analysis there will be significant coupling effects between the three and hence identify which one aspect to concentrate on may not be such a good idea.
We also start to arrive at a more precise definition of a community of practice guided by these three parameters. While the difference between a community of practice and a business or operational team was evident from the first reading too the differentiation between a community of practice and a community of interest here is very interesting!
While I have appreciated the scope of the Wenger et al piece
and believe the class has done an excellent job of critiquing and
deconstructing the article, I want to comment on the viability of CoP’s in
certain industries and even in certain companies.
If we are to accept that companies are comprised of
individuals that form a community then we must also accept that these too are
the personalities that must work at creating a sense of community. According to Wenger et al “the most successful
communities of practice thrive where the goals and needs of an organization
intersect with the passions and aspirations of participants” (pp.32). And while I agree with this statement, this
is not enough! There is something to be said about industries/companies that competitively
pin departments and individuals against each other for the “supposed” benefit
of the company. So, if a company pins
more than one CoP against each other to benefit its bottom line (i.e. 4th
quarter revenue goals) does this mean the end of a “community” of practice.
I ask because the above process of cannibalization is quite
common in many industries where you have shortsighted individuals at the helm.
In my experience, it is highly uncommon to find CoP’s in the world of sales and
I would even venture to say in highly competitive industries like banking,
retail (though I am not referring to IT divisions w/in these industries which
more often than not need to collaborate hence making CoP central to their
existence).
So, while CoP’s can bring about great benefit to a company
and can really benefit the bottom line, this cannot take place unless the
culture of a company fosters a proactive and wanting attitude towards building
community. This inevitably starts at
the top and cascades to the center of a company’s core- its human capital.
Clearly, my thoughts above are tainted by my own experiences
but in all of my years in mgt., intl. sales and media I have never had the
privilege of being part of a CoP. I
think however that proactive individuals who are open to change and embracing
of it form bonds and relationships that act as “unofficial CoP’s” but I think
coming out of the closet, if you will, is what perhaps lends the greatest
amount of validity and weight to any organization that is embracing of its
employees openly sharing ideas, values, best practices and sensemaking.
Three pillars: Domain, Community and Practice
The second chapter is about structure
of community of practices. Some attributes of community of practice
are: size, life span, location, homogeneity, organization span,
official status. The attributes help us identify the community of
practice from other communities; considering that all organization
inevitably have some communities.
The basic structure of community of
practice consists of three elements: domain, community and practice.
ground shared by the members. Domain is not a end result (e.g. a web
site) but a benchmark that requires sustained learning (e.g. web site
usability). Members of the community should be committed to the
domain. Communities of practice succeed when the domain bridge the
individual aspirations with the business goals of the company.
and their relationships. I think it refers to the social network
within the community. When members build trust it becomes easier to
find the experts and ask for help. To retain the relationship,
members need to have sustained interactions. Within the community
members will take unique roles that may or may not be clearly
defined. Communities change in structure depending on their size.
They can be dense, fluid or segregated as their size increases. Since
personal passion of the members is critical for the community,
voluntary participation is ideal. But encouragement and coercion can
help the growth of the community.
socially defined ways of doing things. It includes the artifacts
created and shared by the community like documents, tools, theories.
It is the rules of interaction that keeps the community together.
Activities of the community that result in some artifacts like
documents are equally important as the artifact. Members learn from
the interaction as much as from the documents. This act also
baselines the knowledge of the community, spurring the members to
work on higher problems.
Authors have contracted communities of
practice with familiar organizational structures like business units,
project teams, professional associations - to highlight other
structural features of communities of practice. The primary purpose
of community of practice is to develop knowledge. Members share
interest and knowledge while having a commitment to their domain.
Finally the authors have listed some
questions whose answers will aid the practical implementation of the
communities of practice.
This chapter gave me the blueprints of
communities of practice; moving towards practical implementation. My
concern is the conflicting nature of the implementation. The first
chapter gave a very open, joyous view of these communities. I think
forcing a structure and giving an official stamp to the community
might disperse the crowd. In the end I think we have to tread a line
between a rigid and flexible structure.
Some thoughts on Wenger et al. reading
In chapter 2 of the Wenger et al. reading, the authors describe several common attributes of communities of practices, including its size, life span, physical structure, membership, relationship within organizations, and establishment. This is to illustrate the fact that these communities can be established under (and for) a myriad of different circumstances and settings. However, Wenger et al. propose that all communities share three structural elements, which the authors describe in terms of 1) domain, 2) community, and 3) practice. I like to think of these three elements as the 1) background knowledge and shared understanding, 2) the researchers, students, and practitioners, and 3) the developed (and developing) best practices, of a specific area in a specific field.
To me, Wenger et al.’s explanation of how communities of practices differs from other communities became especially clear when communities of interests was mentioned (page 43-44). In other words, communities of practices are not simply about groups of enthusiasts having shared interests in certain topics. However, what is troubling to me is how Wenger et al. recognize that individuals have varying incentives for joining, but at the same time expect domain, community, and practice to be developed in parallel. To me it seems like these three elements will inevitably be weighed differently across each community of practice. For instance, a open source development forum may care more about having an extremely robust community (to encourage innovation, facilitate exchange of ideas, and etc), while a community concerned with a more close-minded domain might care deeply about having clear, well-defined practices. However, I actually can’t think of a good example. Perhaps I am thinking in the wrong direction?
Getting to the 3 domains
I think Geoff brings up a good point, which is that Wenger etal, do not address the "start-up" phase of communities of practice. Once the communities exist, we see domain, community, and practice. But how do these develop at the inception of a CoP? Is community needed first (a social network of people who know and trust one another)? A little bit of all three? I would be interested in seeing what constitutes the optimal hotbed for communities of practice.
3 domains, now what?
Again, I agree with Erin's point. This is the second chapter of a business document written to help business cultivate communities of practice in their organization. The large portion of this chapter was on the three fundamental elements of a community of practice: domain of knowledge, which defines a set of issues, a community of people who care about the domain, and the shared practice they are developing to be effective within the domain (27). This is all to stress that when a community is working well with all of these elements, the community is more effective at developing and sharing knowledge (29). The authors stress the interaction of communities when they say that communities aren’t merely websites or databases, but “a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment” (34). The chapter ends with a good table on p. 42 differentiating communities of practice from other structures within businesses.
Given that, though, this chapter still felt largely redundant--what once the authors outlined the 3 main elements they largely beat them to death without adding new insight. I did use this chpater as the text to see the othe articles for this week through, though, and it was interesting to see how often the idea of smaller subgroups came up in nearly every reading.
I think Erin pointed out an
I think Erin pointed out an interesting question: which one of domain, community or practice is the determinant factor in the inception of a CoP? It's almost as interesting as the chicken-egg problem :) Maybe we can design an experiment to study it?
Weighing the 3 elements
It may be true that the three different elements Wenger describes (domain, community, practice) could be weighed differently across different communities of practice. However, this means that even communities of practice with the same or similar domains could place different values on each element. So the open source development forum proposed above might emphasize community while another open source development forum emphasizes practice. In fact, Wenger mentions that even different members within the same community may be more interested in certain elements over others, which could make it even more difficult to determine the values of a community as a whole.
The way that Wenger
The way that Wenger differentiates CoPs from other communities though it seems like he is favoring the practice over the community. But since this is largely written from a business perspective that shouldn't be too surprising.
Comments on Chapter 2
At my recent job working for sapient consulting we would have regular teleconferences where specific groups with mutual interests would have discussions as highlited in chapter 2. We would have a creative design europe call or a site development germany call where we would share latest news, updates on projects or discuss individual ideas. The bigger the audience the more uni-directional the participation would be.
According to the chapter these calls were mostly heterogenous but across multiple levels of boundaries.
Due to timezone differences and the nature of the business these would be intentional at predefined times. These phonecalls were highly institutionalized.
However there was a unrecognized informal meeting up to two times a month were people would get together for after work socializing where everybody brought food. These events were often quite valuable in terms of collaboration and exchange of information.
Another way to exchange knowledge was the use of email distribution lists which was used probably most often but due to the unfiltered broadcasting of information to "almost" everyone i don't think it was as successful. It was sufficient for getting quick answers on simple topics, but people could hardly identify progress of a discussion and it was extremly difficult to refer back to knowledge contained in those "inbox threads".
Domain, community and practice
In this chapter, the author is modeling the structure for most communities despite of the form and as he pointed out the basic model he has structured consists of three elements, that are domain community and practice. According to the author, Domain is the base of a community and it also inspires its members to contribute and participate, guides their learning and gives meaning to their actions. Community is an important element in that it could foster interactions and relationships based on mutual respect and may encourage willingness to contribute and share. And much easier to understand is the last concept of practice as author mentions that practice is the specific knowledge the community develops, shares and maintains. As we are all involved in one virtual community or another, it is pretty straightforward and easy to catch the ideas when try to think of real life examples. In addition, author tried to distinguish community with business and other functional units from the primary purpose perspective and also the different between community of practice which is more loosely connected and informal with general communities, project teams, informal networks etc.
Three elements, but difficult to control.
In chapter 2, Wenger et al. analyze three fundamental elements of any Community of Practice, namely Domain, Community, and Practice. Briefly: Domain defines a set of issues to be discussed and gives identity to a community; A Community is a set of people who are passionate about these issues. It encourages willingness to exchange ideas about the domain; Practice is the specific knowledge that the community develops, shares, and maintains.
The reading gives a convincing argument about the necessity of all three elements for the success of any Community of Practice. Towards the end, comparisons are also drawn between the communities of practice and other structures such as business units, project teams, and professional associations, among others.
However, Unlike for other structures, It has been said that Communities of Practice evolve and end organically, that their belongingness is entirely self-selected based on its users' passion and commitment to domain, and that their expertise is the only thing that holds them together. In other words, they have been explained to be a living entity that will exist as long as there is relevance for the domain, and value and interest in learning together. I question: If Community of Practices are so organic, and if they cannot be controlled in the way the formal business units and project teams can, then what role or control do the designers and managers of such communities have on the success, health and longevity of the Community of Practices? Can the three fundamental entities be thoughtfully 'designed' to produce the desired balance in Communities?
Practical community V.s Official organization etc
Chapter2 introduces all kinds of communities of practice and three structural elements of a community of practice including domain, community and practice.
In the aspect of the relationship between communities of practice and official organizations, I am wondering the effect of organizations on such practical communities, especially inside the business. For instance, how members’ response to the interruption of organization power on their community, will it bring positive incentive to individuals’ contribution when such community is recognized or promoted by official organizations?
While we realize the effect of such community on the production of organizations, how about their function on the relationship between members, which I think has further influence on the structure of organizations. For instance, the community of practice entitles new identity to their members besides their traditional identity in organizations; therefore, it enhances the probability of success for future collaboration in/between organizations
Community of central bank webmasters
I am (but on sabbatical) part of the community of central bank webmasters. Have I mentioned this before? The community is made of, well, webmasters of the central bank kind. An interesting characteristic of this community is that I was the only one in my organization, and many organizations are like this. FRB-NY had 2. BIS in Switzerland had 4. The community in effect is so dispersed, globally in fact, but it was able to function due to the same type of vocation and interest.
As we were technologist/communicators in an organization focused on economics and finance, I can safely say that organizations (our employers) do not really affect us. Admittedly, the organization policy do come into play, but that does not generally hinder how we work. The COP was alive with ideas being shared, people coming together to work on data dissemination standards, etc.
Incentive? It wasn't necessary because we were passionate. Well, I did use "being a member of the COP" as an advantage over others in my department.. that's good enough incentive to get bonuses.. :-D
Three elements
Wenger et al Ch.2 focuses on three structural elements: Domain, community, and Practice. These three threads are weaved tightly together and should be balanced. Wenger et al said “Focusing too much on one, while neglecting the others can be counterproductive.”
I found answers to my question that what motivate people to contribute within communities of practices. An example in page 29 describes that Arlene has a commitment to share her insights to the practice of her community. When I read this, I was curious where the commitment comes from at first. Then, I found a possible answer in following paragraphs. I especially like the paragraph in page 37: “They know that their own contribution will come back to them…it is a pool of goodwill-of “social capital,” …that allows people to contribute to the community while trusting that at some point, in some form, they too will benefit.” In my opinion, people who ask for help can get assist. Also, people who provide help can get others in return sooner or later. In other words, users may benefit mutually in the community.
Although these concepts are useful to understand the structure of communities of practices, I still feel some descriptions might be too ideal to be true.
Distributed & Integrated Cognition in Communities
This chapter is getting in more detailed about communities of practice, by providing the triple-aspect structure: domain, community, and practice. In particular, it gets through the idea of how the dynamic of knowledge structure is taking place, which I thought it is valuable in all considerations about community evaluation and design. It reminds me much of the concept of distributed cognition and I would like to think the knowledge structure in the community of practice is actually mapping to a kind of more intense and effective cognitive interaction and augmentation; which is embedded in the dense interrelations in the community network.
Especially in those kinds of communities of practices as defined in this chapter, this cognitive process participants were involved seems to be even more crucial. Actually for the instance mentioned about Xerox’s tech supporting forum, there had been the problem of under-contribution: only 1/5 users have contributed to tips. So if the problem cannot be solved effectively, it may lead to the unbalance of input/output of system and hard to keep growing: like a man cannot get enough nutriment. On the other hand, just looking at the big number of users who take advantage of the forum, we could see how effectively the system can help users to transform the common nutriment into their own expertise and get improved. The forum is just a material space of the knowledge structure dynamic.
Sharing Knowledge
The way that communities of practice are described in this chapter remind me a bit of academia. The main goal is to share knowledge and ideas in the hopes that larger problems can be solved as a result.
I like how communities of practice are in a way self-validated because they exist. The fact that they don't just lose steam shows that people have enough of an interest and stake in them that they really are useful.
Stewards and Observers
Communities of Practice
So far I really like Wenger. This chapter spent more time looking at the components of communities of practice I generally felt that his insights were very beneficial in analyzing CoPs. In particular I thought that the implications for the model were interesting. Before reading this I hadn’t really considered the benefits of being a practitioner of over having an interest in domain. The section on informal networks vs. Cops (pg 43) was a very interesting look at the advantages of CoPs.
However, I did make me wonder if there isn’t inherent value in being interested in a domain and not being a practitioner. Is it possible that having an outside perspective on a domain is more valuable in certain circumstances? I think that often having an outside perspective can be beneficial to community. Not as steward of knowledge for the domain but as active contributors it seems that this could certainly be advantageous.
I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.
-Jorge Luis Borges
Wikipedia as an example
I find Jared's point about domain vs. practice to be an interesting one, and I think it relates to what I want to say about Wikipedia as a community of practice.
I found Wenger et al's emphasis upon CoPs' key activity being the creation of something (best practices, documentation, etc.) evoked images of Wikis and open source software development communities. These must certainly be CoPs because they have a domain (whether it be creating software or a collaborative encyclopedia or other living document), a community (there must be communication and relationships build for the collaboration to take place), and a practice (the activity of devoting effort to creating something).
And yet this seems a bit different from the CoPs that are more of a peripheral group to the main activities of employment, such as the Chrysler communities trying to enhance engineering practices.
This is where Jared's point comes in - perhaps you can have a CoP that uses some crowdsourcing in addition to the regular contributions of regular Wikipedian practitioners. Perhaps those who contribute their efforts in small quantities contribute from outside community of practice by sharing the domain and less so the practice or community since they may only fix typos, not really familiarizing themselves with the larger process or the other members of the community as much as those regulars. But then I think this lends itself to saying that there is simply a continuum of involvement.
In any case, I think Wikipedia is an interesting example to consider, and I hope that we discuss it in the context of a CoP in class.
On the value of outside contributors
I would like to echo the notion that outside perspectives may constitute another valuable type of community of practice. Although I followed Wenger and found the concept of CoP's promising, I am increasingly wary of further and further specializationa and insular professional communities that may lead both to growth, but also to homogeneity.
On another note, I struggled somewhat with the distinction between informal networks and CoPs. There is a lot of cross-over, it seems. At prior positions I've had, I've seen hybrid groups that seem to have elements of both. For example, my boss directed a large longitudinal study and had a loose network with other longitudinal-folk around the world with which he collaborated.
Sometimes this group would have conference calls just to catch up, other times some shared venture like a grant would be involved. There was a lot of comraderie and knowledge sharing that was both open and structured. I'm not sure pure communities of practice could abound with too much regularity in most of the professional environments in which I've worked. There is too little time to form them in addition to maintaining other forms of networking facilitated through work.
Lisa McLaughlin
Community of Practice Expansions or Enhancements
Jared asks a really good question about the value of having some outside perspective on a domain. Extending this idea to adjacent domains, or same domains (but broader definitions), or people with depth in multiple domains (but not necessarily practitioners) is a proven technique for coming up with new ideas - an innovation strategy. So.. it is absolutely valuable, but I don't know where it fits in the Wenger model. Ideo has a whole theory about hiring "T" shaped people, who have deep expertise in 2 fields, as well as people who are good at spanning fields and cross-fertilization. A book called the Ten Faces of Innovation goes into this in detail.
I really like the Wegner article and found it much more informative than Kim or Powazek. That said, it is obviously designed to sell his ideas to companies and it doesn't take a critical approach. I know that a lot of these kinds of efforts, including knowledge management system, have been hugely disappointing for companies, and that kind of information isn't coming through in the article. I'm wondering where this communities of practice idea stands today. Was it hyped and then did it disappoint, or has it been accepted as something that companies should definitely try to foster?
In last week's reading, one of the examples that Wenger used was Proctor and Gamble using communities of practice to apply technology innovation across product lines. Recently, I read an article about Proctor and Gamble's innovation efforts, and they've created a design-thinking education for managers across the company. They have also created a special design-thinking board to help them with innovation. This board is comprised of people who are very creative thinkers in their own fields (all design related), but people who have nothing to do with consumer packaged goods. Proctor and Gamble doesn't feel that it has this design/creative skill and expertise in-house. I found this illustrative, and I think that it perhaps shows a limitation of the communities of practice idea as put forth by Wenger.
Community on the Periphery
This reading presented, for me, a new perspective on communities, albeit a somewhat laborious one. An intriguing aspect of communities of practice, and what distinguishes them from many of the other communities presented in the readings thus far is that for communities of practice, the community is on the periphery. The community is being developed, principally to aid and improve a specific practice (through concerted effort in a specific domain). The heart of the exercise is the practice, which provides a clear distinction from, say, 'third places', where community seems to exist for community's sake.
This distinction suggests that CoPs are the type-A communities... they meet to resolve problems and to accomplish goals. In this regard, the backseat role of these communities to their practices seems to imply dimished emphasis on relationships between members. I would be interested to know whether communities of practice generally have shorter lifespans. Of course, this does not necessarily have to be the case. An argument could be made that the common ground (domain/practice) among members of these communities may actually accelerate or enforce bonds, despite the focus on activity rather than socialization.
In any light, this perspective on communities is a valuable one, as it reinforces the reading from Kim that suggested that any online community should be developed with a clear purpose. This is quite clearly accomplished through 'practice', which is differentiated from and (in this reading) seemingly superior to the community itself.
it's about something
John Blair
For me, this simple quote highlighted the article. While there was able examples of pitfalls and success stratgies like in the other readings, this statement defined a community of practice for me. this is the bottom line.
useful ways for characterizing many types of communities
Overall, I liked this chapter. The main points of the chapter have been extensively discussed by others above, so I will limit my comments on that to perhaps a reply or to. I did want to draw some attention to another part of the chapter, though.
I think the first section (communities of practice take many forms, 24-27) offers some additional ways of characterizing communities that will be useful as students describe the communities they are studying this semester. Particularly, as we get to the design claims section of the course, it may be helpful to think about these characteristics as way of bounding design claims: while it may be hard to say that "design choice x produces behavior y in online communities," we may have an easier time making and supporting claims such as "design choice x produces behavior y in online communities that exist soley within a business and across business units," or "design choice x produces behavior y in online communities that exist are instititutionalized (sponsored/hosted/designed by a company or organization related to the topic, e.g. a tech support forum/wiki hosted by the associated company) but not in unrecognized communities (e.g., a tech forum/wiki hosted by a group of enthusiasts)."
Wenger et al's characteristics are not the only ways of bounding all communities, and some apply better to communities of practice than other metaphors for online communities, but they are a good start.
Even more triads
Wenger et al describe yet another triad in a somewhat light and repetitive business-oriented chapter.
First, the "domain," or topic, provides common ground and common identity. This domain is not static but evolves. Elsewhere they delve more deeply into the when/why/how's of this evolution.
Second, the community fosters interactions and relationships. This community consists of regular interactions.
The authors note the value of diversity (vs. homogeneity), as well as noting benefits associated with size, forms of reciprocity, and general openness.
Third, practice is constituted by the shared knowledge around specific activities. Participants who acquire expertise in practice (should) gain reputation in the community.
Finally, the authors include a section to distinguish CoP's from other structures (summarized in a table). There seems to be little difference between CoP's and Communities of Interest (even in the table).
As an afterthought, there are a number of interesting footnotes:
Footnote 6 relates Dewey and Bourdieu on "practice"
Footnote 14 mentions the anthropological 50-member limit, and Gladwell
Footnote 17 refers to Putnam (Bowling Alone, and Making Democracy Work) and "generalized reciprocity"
and most interestingly
Footnote 26 mentions even more triads that occur in both Judaism and Buddhism
--------------------------------------------------------
PHartzog@umich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
--Muriel Rukeyser
The observation about
The observation about "triads" is an interesting one. Actually, the Chinese philosophy believes that "triad" is the most stable structure of all.
Communities of Malpractice
Wenger et al begin by detailing varied forms that may arise in a Community of Practice.
○ Small Or Big - as communities grow, they divide into sub-groups to maintain close relationships
○ Long-lived or short-lived - long-running and nascent communities both share start-up time for developing a practice
○ Co-located or Distributed - shared practices allow members to share knowledge despite proximity
○ Homogeneous or heterogeneous - people with differences may share similar problems
○ Inside and Across Boundaries - communities of practice may open paths between different organizations
○ Spontaneous or Intentional - problems drive the need for relationships and don't have base levels of formality
○ Unrecognized to institutionalized - communities of practice may or may not be sanctioned
Wenger et al continue by detailing a structural model for domain, community, and practice:
○ Domain - The common ground members share, a topic of interest.
○ Community - "social fabric of learning"? The authors claim what a community does, but don't define what a community is. For example, a box "does" hold things, but is a container.
○ Practice - knowledge shared by community members
Exploring domain further, the authors note shared domains foster accountability to the continued development of its practice. Common ground - or what members all understand about a shared domain - is the core reason for a community of practice to exist. Because domains evolve over time, possibly with a "half-life of eighteen months", members advance their understanding through consistent engagement with one another. As the concept of community is examined, the authors offer their most specific definition of the term - "a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment." They also emphasize that regular interaction is a prerequisite for community building. Their analysis of practice defines some practical tasks for knowledge communities, like establishing "a baseline of common knowledge" for all members, exploring ideas, and clarifying and documenting their knowledge for future use. The key elements of documentation include "definitions, models, methods, and stories."
I'm hopeful this self-promoting chapter helps our class establish a "baseline of common knowledge" before getting into objective case studies.
Informal network
It is interesting that Wenger et al. are trying to distinguish among different "groups" in an organization. While most distinctions they made are reasonable, I am not quite sure about the "community of interest" and "informal network". Even from Table 2-2. they look quite similar, especially if all three groups are with online presence. Though they said that domain is what makes a community of practice different from the other two, however, without formal recognition or support from an organization, the three could be alike. I think it's possible for a community of interest or informal network to transform into a community of practice, or even the other way around. It may be a good idea to see whether there are such cases out there.
a brief summary
This chapter mainly talks about the three elements of the structure model of CoP: domain, community and practice. From that perspective, the chapter also distinguishes CoP from other organizational units or groups. Overall, after reading this piece, I have a deeper understanding of the charateristics of CoP, which will serve as a basis for my future research.
Not a believer
Am I the only one who was a bit disappointed by this reading? Beyond the bloat of discussing communities, practices, and domains, and all the self-admitted "fuzziness" of explaining that communities of practice have no one definition because they can take so many forms, I find that this chapter can be distilled into the following:
Communities of practice = colleagues who talk.
Talking with your colleagues is good. You can help each other out and learn from each other. This is even better when your company supports your efforts. But your success in the end depends on how much effort you voluntarily put into it.
Beyond this, the chapter just seems to reiterate upon these themes. But is this anything more than just selling an idea to companies, as has been mentioned by Ami? In other words, is there actually anything here worth studying?
a very helpful model for practicioners and community organizers
I found this chapter of Wenger interesting enough to go out and purchase the book for a couple of people who I work with. Trying to build community is such a dark art that even this relatively modest contribution of identifying three "pillars" is a good step in sensemaking the phenomenon. I believe this chapter does a fine job at identifying structure in these communities -- it fits well with examples of this online, eg PerlMonks.org.
I think that one key element often neglected by creators is the "community" pillar -- or introspective features of the site. So many proported communities of practice focus so much on domain and practice that they forget that people are very interested in one another, in addition to the material at hand. In good online communities of practice a users profile page can be as informational and helpful as specific howtos and practice-based guidelines.
--------------------------------------------------------------
oostendo@umich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------
Towards a more precise definition
Wenger’s analysis of a community around the three parameters of domain, community and practice is interesting as for now we see the first hints of the careful analysis of a community coming into the readings. Wenger also broadly touches upon the different aspects which might be interesting in the three different parameters.
He also mentions this breakdown can have implications of a structured model to study an online community. I am not so convinced about his other claim though that it tell us which area we need to focus on so we can concentrate on that. I believe while we can abstract the study of the community into the three dimensions for ease of analysis there will be significant coupling effects between the three and hence identify which one aspect to concentrate on may not be such a good idea.
We also start to arrive at a more precise definition of a community of practice guided by these three parameters. While the difference between a community of practice and a business or operational team was evident from the first reading too the differentiation between a community of practice and a community of interest here is very interesting!
No culture- No communities of Practice
While I have appreciated the scope of the Wenger et al piece
and believe the class has done an excellent job of critiquing and
deconstructing the article, I want to comment on the viability of CoP’s in
certain industries and even in certain companies.
If we are to accept that companies are comprised of
individuals that form a community then we must also accept that these too are
the personalities that must work at creating a sense of community. According to Wenger et al “the most successful
communities of practice thrive where the goals and needs of an organization
intersect with the passions and aspirations of participants” (pp.32). And while I agree with this statement, this
is not enough! There is something to be said about industries/companies that competitively
pin departments and individuals against each other for the “supposed” benefit
of the company. So, if a company pins
more than one CoP against each other to benefit its bottom line (i.e. 4th
quarter revenue goals) does this mean the end of a “community” of practice.
I ask because the above process of cannibalization is quite
common in many industries where you have shortsighted individuals at the helm.
In my experience, it is highly uncommon to find CoP’s in the world of sales and
I would even venture to say in highly competitive industries like banking,
retail (though I am not referring to IT divisions w/in these industries which
more often than not need to collaborate hence making CoP central to their
existence).
So, while CoP’s can bring about great benefit to a company
and can really benefit the bottom line, this cannot take place unless the
culture of a company fosters a proactive and wanting attitude towards building
community. This inevitably starts at
the top and cascades to the center of a company’s core- its human capital.
Clearly, my thoughts above are tainted by my own experiences
but in all of my years in mgt., intl. sales and media I have never had the
privilege of being part of a CoP. I
think however that proactive individuals who are open to change and embracing
of it form bonds and relationships that act as “unofficial CoP’s” but I think
coming out of the closet, if you will, is what perhaps lends the greatest
amount of validity and weight to any organization that is embracing of its
employees openly sharing ideas, values, best practices and sensemaking.
Andres Montejo