Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Information Systems and Management

Sharing Knowledge through Communities of Practice

Profile image of Carlos Merino MorenoCarlos Merino Moreno

Methodologies for Competitive Advantage

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-802-4.CH002
visibility

…

description

15 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Campos, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book provides a sound understanding of the managerial implications of communities of practice as well as their opportunities and limits for knowledge management"-Provided by publisher.

Related papers

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOL
De-Graft Johnson A Dei

Knowledge sharing have become essential requirements for every organization. Knowledge management has emerged as an overarching strategy to enhance knowledge creation, information transfer, utilization, and reticulation in order to generate innovation and improve organizational performance. Part of this strategy involves the creation of Communities of Practice. These are networks of individuals with a common, shared purpose grouped together to facilitate knowledge building, idea creation and information exchange.

View PDFchevron_right
Communities of Practice: Going One Step Too Far?
Chris Kimble

2005

In the late 1990s, Knowledge Management (KM) and Communities of Practice (CoPs) seemed inseparable. CoPs appeared to offer the key to reversing the failure of some of the earlier technologically based attempts to manage knowledge. However, the original CoP concept was built around a very different set of principles to those put forward by the proponents of KM. This paper presents a critical review of some of the claims made for CoPs. It will address questions such as Are CoPs really suitable for use in a business setting? and Can a CoP ever be truly virtual?

View PDFchevron_right
Communities of Practice
Meliha Handzic

Studies and Initiatives, 2007

The objective of this chapter is to explore the social dynamics and the effectiveness benefits that a community of practice creates for its members in a knowledge-intensive IT industry. Social dynamics is examined in terms of informal and organised forms of socialisation processes. Effectiveness benefits were evaluated in terms of commitment, friendship, community satisfaction, process satisfaction, and trust. The results of the study indicate that organised socialisation had a significant positive impact on all aspects of community effectiveness, but no particularly outstanding effect. The results further indicate that informal socialisation had a stronger positive impact on community effectiveness than organised socialisation, except for process satisfaction. These findings confirm the value of socialisation for effective knowledge organisations, and suggest the need for strategies that would provide encouragement without overformalisation.

View PDFchevron_right
Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity
Rania Ezzat

1999

A NEW ORGANIZATIONAL FORM is emerging in companies that run on knowledge: the community of practice. And for this expanding universe of companies, communities of practice promise to radically galvanize knowledge sharing, learning, and change.

View PDFchevron_right
Managing Knowledge within Communities of Practice: Analysing Needs and Developing Services. eLearning Papers
Manfred Künzel

2007

Summary This paper addresses the issue of knowledge management and learning within Communities of Practice (CoPs). This issue is particularly challenging at a time of global elearning and implementation and development of CoPs within public or private organisations. Communities of Practices (CoPs) are groups of professionals who share their knowledge, ideas and practices in a common domain or topic. More and more companies and public institutions turn to the implementation of CoPs, both for capitalizing knowledge and for improving the experience and knowledge of their employees. In this context, important questions arise about the management of collective knowledge and the human organisation, as well as the technological tools to support this process. What are the needs of (online) CoPs concerning their learning, their knowledge management and the organisation of both? What kind of needs could be satisfied by web services? What kind of services? How could they be produced to meet th...

View PDFchevron_right
Born to be Wild: Using Communities of Practice as a Tool for Knowledge Management.
Chris Kimble

This paper looks at what happens when Communities of Practice are used as a tool for Knowledge Management. The original concept of a Community of Practice appears to have very little in common with the knowledge sharing communities found in Knowledge Management, which are based on a revised view of 'cultivated' communities. We examine the risks and benefits of cultivating Communities of Practice rather than leaving them 'in the wild'. The paper presents the findings from two years of research in a small microelectronics firm to provide some insights into the wild vs domesticated dichotomy and discusses the implications of attempting to tame Communities of Practice in this way.

View PDFchevron_right
Knowledge Sharing Within and Between Communities of Practice in a Knowledge Intensive Organization
Tuija Lämsä

IGI Global eBooks, 2011

The aim of this chapter is to link communities of practice to the knowledge creation and dissemination in the specific context of knowledge intensive organization. This is done by pointing out the role that CoPs may have in relation to knowledge sharing and innovativeness in the knowledge intensive context. CoPs can fulfill numerous functions in respect to the creation, accumulation, and diffusion of knowledge. Thus, Wenger's (1998) clarifying categorization of those knowledge-related functions has served as a foundation and inspiration in this context-specific description: exchange and interpretation of information; retaining knowledge; steward competencies and provide homes for identities. However, it is worth noting that while communities of practice are traditionally seen as the creators of knowledge and innovations, it is also important to acknowledge the challenges and even obstacles of these tightly-coupled groups may bring to the organizational knowledge sharing and learning processes. These issues are mainly defined through our empirical case examples we have linked to the theoretical review.

View PDFchevron_right
Communities Of Practice: The Source Of Competitive Advantage In Organisations
Gerald Guan Gan GOH

Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AS A METHOD FOR KNOWLEDGE-ORIENTED COOPERATION1
Marco Bettoni

After a short historical review of the development of the concept of "Communities of Practice" (CoP) we present examples of organisational Knowledge Management (KM) in which Etienne Wenger's CoP model has been applied. In the main part we focus on the business orientated CoP framework that Wenger, Snyder and McDermott proposed in 2002 for KM by extending the original approach of 1998. Finally we conclude with a critical reflection over the necessity - within KM frameworks - to explicitly emphasize participation in stewarding knowledge as a condition for bridging the gap between knowledge and its management.

View PDFchevron_right
Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail
Gilbert Probst

European Management Journal, 2008

A specific form of intra-organizational networks -a community of practice (COP) -is increasingly regarded as an important structure within organizations. This network structure is well suited for the development and sharing of knowledge and practices across divisions. Our research explores the most salient reasons for the success and failure of such networks. An investigation of 57 COPs from major European and US companies led to the discovery of 10 ''commandments'' that lead to the successful development and sharing of best practices. It also identified five main reasons for failure.

View PDFchevron_right

References (47)

  1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Man- agement Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25, 107-136. doi:10.2307/3250961
  2. Almeida, P., Phene, A., & Grant, R. (2003). In- novation and Knowledge Management: Scanning Sourcing and Integration. In Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Organiza- tional Learning and Knowledge Management (pp. 356-371). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
  3. Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An In- tegrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes. Management Science, 49, 571-582. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424
  4. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Com- ment. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
  5. Blumentritt, R., & Johnston, R. (1999). Towards a Strategy for Knowledge Management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11, 287-300. doi:10.1080/095373299107366
  6. Bontis, N. (1999). Managing Organizational Knowledge by Diagnosing Intellectual Capital: Framing and Advancing the State of the Field. International Journal of Technology Management, 18, 433-462. doi:10.1504/IJTM.1999.002780
  7. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Towards a Unified view of Working, Learning and Innova- tion. Organization Science, 2, 40-57. doi:10.1287/ orsc.2.1.40
  8. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing Knowledge. California Management Review, 40, 90-111.
  9. Bueno, E. (2003). Enfoques principales y tenden- cias en dirección del conocimiento (Knowledge Management). In Hernández, R. (Ed.), Dirección del conocimiento: Desarrollos teóricos y apli- caciones (pp. 21-54). Trujillo, Spain: Ediciones La Coria.
  10. Bueno, E. (2005). Fundamentos epistemológi- cos de dirección del conocimiento organizativo: Desarrollo, medición y gestión de intangibles. Economía Industrial [Spanish Ministry for In- dustry, Tourism y Trade], 357, 13-26.
  11. Bueno, E., Merino, C., & Plaz, R. (2008). Model on Knowledge-Governance: Collaboration Focus and Communities of Practice. In Camisón, C., Devece, C., Garrigos, F., & Palacios, D. (Eds.), Connectivity in Management Virtual Organiza- tions: Networking and Developping Interactive Communications (pp. 89-105). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
  12. Bueno, E., & Ordoñez, P. (2007). Intellectual Capital Statement: New challenges for managers. In Joia, L. A. (Ed.), Strategies for Information Technology and Intellectual Capital: Challenges and Oportunities (pp. 91-110). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
  13. Bueno, E., & Plaz, R. (2005). Desarrollo y Gobi- erno del Conocimiento Organizativo: Agentes y procesos. Boletín Intellectus, 8, 16-23.
  14. Bueno, E., & Salmador, M. P. (Eds.). (2000). Perspectivas sobre Dirección del Conocimiento y Capital Intelectual. Madrid: Instituto Univer- sitario Euroforum Escorial.
  15. Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.4.381
  16. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. How Organizations What They Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  17. Foss, N. (2006). The Emerging Knowledge Gover- nance Approach: Challenges and Characteristics, DRUID Working Paper, no. 06-10.
  18. Grant, R. M. (1991). A Resource Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
  19. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.
  20. IADE-CIC. (2003). Modelo de medición y gestión del capital intelectual: Modelo Intellectus. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid: CIC-IADE.
  21. Itami, H. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible Assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  22. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities and the Rep- lication of Technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
  23. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do. Coordination, identity and Learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502-518. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.502
  24. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511609268
  25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Merino, C. (2004). La Inteligencia Organizativa como Dinamizador del Capital Intelectual. Revista Puzzle, 3(14), 4-10.
  27. Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96-104.
  28. Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Orga- nizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
  29. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowl- edge-Creating Company: How Japanese Com- panies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  30. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Kono, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5-34. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6
  31. Ordoñez, P. (2001). Relevant Experiences on Mea- suring and Reporting Intellectual Capital in Euro- pean Pioneering Firms. In N. Bontis & C. Cheng (Eds.), World Congress on Intellectual Capital Reading. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  32. Orr, J. (1987). Narratives at Work: Story Telling as Cooperative Diagnostic Activity. Field Service Manager, June, 47-60.
  33. Orr, J. (1990). Sharing Nowledge, Celebrating Identity: War Stories and Communitys Memory in a Service Culture. In Middleton, D. S., & Edwards, D. (Eds.), Collective Remembering. Memory in Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  34. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The Cornerstone of Com- petitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191. doi:10.1002/smj.4250140303
  35. Plaz, R., & González, N. (2005). La gestión del conocimiento organizativo: dinámicas de agregación de valor en la organización. Economía Industrial, 357, 41-62.
  36. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
  37. Shin, M., Holden, T., & Schmidt, R. A. (2001). From Knowledge Theory to Management Prac- tice: Towards an Integrated Approach. Informa- tion Processing & Management, 37, 335-355. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00031-5
  38. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62.
  39. Staples, D. S., Greenaway, K., & Mckeen, J. (2001). Opportunities for Research about Man- aging the Knowledge-based Enterprise. Interna- tional Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 1-20. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00051
  40. Szulanski, G. (2000). The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9-27. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2884
  41. Teece, D. J. (2000). Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: The Role of Firm Structure and Industrial Context. Long Range Planning, 33, 509-533. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00117-X Tsoukas, H. (1996). The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructionist Approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11-25.
  42. Vassiliadis, S., Seufert, A., Back, A., & Von Krogh, G. (2000). Competing with Intellectual Capital: Theoretical Background. Institute for Informa- tion Management and Institute of Management, University of St. Gallen.
  43. Von Krogh, G., & Ross, J. (1995). Organizational Epistemology. New York: MacMillan and St Martin's Press.
  44. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organiza- tional Memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57-91. doi:10.2307/258607
  45. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and Identity. Boston: Cam- bridge University Press.
  46. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.
  47. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207

Related papers

UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
Finian Buckley

Managing knowledge is an issue that is of critical importance to the international firm and the successful sharing of know-how and best practice have been identified as key elements in an international firm's competitive advantage (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Wan & Hoskisson, 2003). While there may be agreement on the value of knowledge sharing, there are many barriers and unknowns to the achievement of this objective.

View PDFchevron_right
Limits of communities of practice
Chris Kimble

… of communities in practice in information …, 2004

The purpose of this paper is to critically explore the communities of practice approach to managing knowledge and its use among management academics and practitioners in recent years. In so doing, the aim is to identify the limits of the approach in the field of knowledge management. The paper begins with a brief description of the communities of practice approach. This is followed by a review of critiques of the approach evident in the management literature. A number of further challenges are then elaborated. The limits of communities of practice are subsequently discussed and brief conclusions drawn.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding the benefits and impact of communities of practice
David Millen

2004

ABSTRACT Organizations are increasingly providing Communities of Practice with resources to improve the exchange and flow of knowledge and information. However, as with any other significant investment, managers are naturally interested in, and are frequently called upon to justify, the impact that these communities have on individual performance, overall productivity and the bottom line.

View PDFchevron_right
The Paradox of Communities of Practice
Donald Hislop

Innovation Through Communities of Practice

This chapter examines knowledge sharing between Communities of Practice, a relatively neglected topic of study. Theory and evidence is presented to suggest that knowledge sharing between communities is likely to be more complex than intra-community knowledge sharing, due to the lack of shared consensual knowledge or shared sense of identity which typically exists in inter-community contexts. In such situations, the development of trust is seen to be a key foundation which requires to be developed before effective knowledge sharing can occur. Three brief case studies are presented to illustrate the arguments made. Practitioner implications flowing from this chapter are twofold. Firstly, to facilitate effective inter-community knowledge sharing requires effort to be invested in developing the social relationship (and hence trust) between members from the communities. Secondly, organizations need to balance their efforts at building Communities

View PDFchevron_right
UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: TAKING STOCK AND MOVING FORWARD
Davide Nicolini

Academy of management Annals, 2022

This paper provides a comprehensive, integrative conceptual review of work on communities of practice (CoPs), defined broadly as groups of people bound together by a common activity, shared expertise, a passion for a joint enterprise, and a desire to learn or improve their practice. We identify three divergent views on the intended purposes and expected effects of CoPs: as mechanisms for fostering learning and knowledge-sharing, as sources of innovation, and as mechanisms to defend interests and perpetuate control over expertise domains. We use these different lenses to make sense of the ways CoPs are conceptualized and to review scholarly work on this topic. We argue that current debate on the future of work and new methodological developments are challenging the received wisdom on CoPs and offer research opportunities and new conceptual combinations. We argue also that the interaction between the lenses and between CoP theory and adjacent literatures might result in new theory and conceptualizations.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Business
  • Knowledge Management
  • Tacit Knowledge

    • Cited by

    Social participation: Redesign of education, research, and practice in occupational therapy*
    Barbara Piskur

    Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2013

    There is growing attention to participation and social participation in literature and policy reports. Occupational therapists strongly believe that creating coherence between the person's occupations and environment will facilitate participation of each individual. Nowadays, societal developments such as "health literacy and self-management", "Web 2.0 social media", "empowering communities", and "Nothing About Us Without Us" increase opportunities for people to interact on different levels of social participation. Social participation can be used as an outcome, though it can also be seen as a means to change society and to develop solutions for barriers experienced by people with chronic diseases or disabilities. Societal developments will have an impact on social participation in terms of supporting each other and contributing to society. Additionally, these changes will have a major influence on the way we educate, conduct research, and deliver occupational therapy practice.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved