communities of practice

"CoP" redirects here. This article is about "Communities of practice". For other uses of CoP, see CoP (disambiguation).

This article appears to contain a large number of buzzwords. Specific concerns can be found on the Talk page. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2009)

Communities of practice (CoP), according to cognitive anthropologists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, describe a group of people who share an interest, a craft, and/or a profession. It is in the process of sharing information and experiences in that group that the members learn from each other, and have an opportunity to develop themselves personally and professionally (Lave & Wenger 1991). CoPs can exist online, such as within electronic bulletin boards, newsgroups, on designated websites, or discussion forums, or in real life, such as in a lunchroom at work, in a field setting, on a factory floor, or elsewhere in the environment.

Overview

Origin and development

Since the publication of Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave & Wenger 1991) in 1991, Communities of Practice have been the focus of attention, first as a theory of learning and later as part of the field of Knowledge Management. See (Hildreth & Kimble 2004) for a review of how the concept has changed over the years. (Cox 2005) offers a more critical view of the different ways in which the term Communities of Practice can be interpreted.

Early years

Lave and Wenger used the term Communities of Practice to describe learning through practice and participation, which they named situated learning. In their search for how learning occurs outside the classroom while at the Institute for Research on Learning, Lave and Wenger studied how newcomers or novices to informal groups become established members of those groups (Lave & Wenger 1991).

Lave and Wenger found that when newcomers join an established group or community, they spend some time initially observing and perhaps performing simple tasks in basic roles as they learn how the group works and how they can participate. Lave and Wenger described this socialization process as legitimate peripheral participation. The term "community of practice" is that group that Lave and Wenger referred to, who share a common interest and a desire to learn from and contribute to the community with their variety of experiences (Lave & Wenger 1991).

The communities Lave and Wenger studied were naturally forming as practitioners of craft and skill-based activities met to share experiences and insights (Lave & Wenger 1991).

Later years

In his later work (Wenger 1998), Wenger abandoned the concept of Legitimate Peripheral Participation and used the idea of an inherent tension in a duality instead. He identifies four dualities that exist in Communities of Practice, participation-reification, designed-emergent, identification-negotiability and local-global, although the participation-reification duality has been the focus of particular interest because of its links to knowledge management.

Present work

For Etienne Wenger, learning is central to human identity. A primary focus of Wenger’s more recent work is on learning as social participation – the individual as an active participant in the practices of social communities, and in the construction of his/her identity through these communities (Wenger et. al 2004). In this context, a community of practice is a group of individuals participating in communal activity, and experiencing/continuously creating their shared identity through engaging in and contributing to the practices of their communities.

There is a great deal of interest within organizations to encourage, support, and sponsor communities of practice in order to benefit from shared knowledge that may lead to higher productivity (Wenger 2004). Communities of Practice are now viewed by many in the business setting as a means to capturing the tacit knowledge, or the know-how that is not so easily articulated.

An important aspect and function of communities of practice is increasing organization performance. Lesser & Storck (2001, p. 836) identify four areas of organizational performance that can be affected by communities of practice:

• Decreasing the learning curve of new employees
• Responding more rapidly to customer needs and inquiries
• Reducing rework and preventing "reinvention of the wheel"
• Spawning new ideas for products and service

Examples of communities of practice

Lave and Wenger observed situated learning within a community of practice among Yucatan midwives, native tailors, navy quartermasters and meat cutters.(Lave & Wenger 1991) and insurance claims processors. (Wenger 1998). Other fields have made use of the concept of CoPs. Examples include education (Grossman 2001), sociolinguistics, material anthropology, and second language acquisition (Kimble, Hildreth & Bourdon 2008).

A famous example of a community of practice within an organization is that which developed around the Xerox customer service representatives who repaired the machines in the field (Brown & Duguid 2000). The Xerox reps began exchanging tips and tricks over informal meetings over breakfast or lunch and eventually Xerox saw the value of these interactions and created the Eureka project to allow these interactions to be shared across the global network of representatives. The Eureka database has been estimated to have saved the corporation 100$ million.

Communities of Practice compared to functional or project teams

A project team differs from a community of practice in that a team is an organizationally sponsored and supported group, with a specific objective, a set time to accomplish that objective, and a date the team will dissolve. In comparison, a community of practice is often organically created, with as many objectives as members of that community. A project team meets to share and exchange information and experiences just as the community of practice does, but because of a team's purpose, the team's main purpose is to work toward formal milestones and deadlines. Finally, the team is dissolved once its mission is accomplished, whereas a community of practice can exist as long as the members believe they have something to contribute to it, or gain from it.

Communities of practice and knowledge management

(Wasko & Faraj 2000) describe three kinds of knowledge: "knowledge as object", "knowledge embedded within individuals", and "knowledge embedded in a community". Communities of Practice have become associated with finding, sharing, transferring, and archiving knowledge, as well as making explicit "expertise", or tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is considered to be those valuable context-based experiences that can not easily be captured, codified and stored (Davenport & Prusak 2000), also (Hildreth & Kimble 2002).

Because knowledge management is seen "primarily as a problem of capturing, organizing, and retrieving information, evoking notions of databases, documents, query languages, and data mining" (Thomas, Kellogg & Erickson 2001), the community of practice, collectively and individually, is considered a rich potential source of helpful information in the form of actual experiences; in other words, best practices.

Thus, for knowledge management, a community of practice is one source of content and context that if codified, documented and archived can be accessed for later use.

Factors of a successful community of practice

Individuals in communities of practice

Members of communities of practice are thought to be more efficient and effective conduits of information and experiences. While organizations tend to provide manuals to meet the training needs of their employees, CoP's help foster the process of storytelling among colleagues which, in turn, helps them strengthen their skills on the job. (Seely Brown & Duguid 1991)

Studies have shown that workers spend a third of their time looking for information and are five times more likely to turn to a co-worker rather than an explicit source of information (book, manual, or database) (Davenport & Prusak 2000). Time is saved by conferring with members of a CoP. Members of the community have tacit knowledge, which can be difficult to store and retrieve outside. For example, one person can share the best way to handle a situation based on his experiences, which may enable the other person to avoid mistakes and shorten the learning curve. In a CoP, members can openly discuss and brainstorm about a project, which can lead to new capabilities. The type of information that is shared and learned in a CoP is boundless (Dalkir 2005). Duguid (2005) clarifies the difference between tacit knowledge, or knowing how, and explicit knowledge, or knowing that. Performing optimally in a job requires being able to convert theory into practice. Communities of practice help the individual bridge the gap between knowing that and knowing how. (Duguid 2005)

Communicating with others in a community of practice involves creating social presence. Tu (2002) defines social presence as "the degree of salience of another person in an interaction and the consequent salience of an interpersonal relationship" (p.38). It is believed that social presence affects how likely an individual is of participating in a COP (especially in online environments). (Tu 2002) Management of a community of practice often faces many barriers that inhibit individuals from engaging in knowledge exchange. Some of the reasons for these barriers are egos and personal attacks, large overwhelming COP's, and time constraints (Wasko & Faraj 2000)

As members of communities of practice, individuals report increased communication with people (professionals, interested parties, hobbyists), less dependence on geographic proximity, and jointly generating new knowledge. (Ardichvilli, Page & Wentling 2008)

Motivation

The way people perceive knowledge has a major impact on people's willingness to exchange knowledge in a community of practice. Members are motivated to become active participants in a COP when they view knowledge as meant for the public good, a moral obligation and/or as a community interest. Members of a community of practice can also be motivated to participate by using methods such as tangible returns (promotion, raises or bonuses), intangible returns (reputation, self-esteem) and community interest (exchange of practice related knowledge, interaction).

One of the factors that CoP uses to make radical innovations in organizations is "motivation". Intrinsic rewards can create motivation which, in turn, is the the best choice to motivate CoP members, especially when the CoP or the project team has less possibility to allocate extrinsic rewards. For example, in the case study of Medico for prostate cancer treatment, although the CoP had to reutralize professional conflicts and resistance, align commcercial interests by the involvement of medical groups that can help to provide market for the product; and finally, the fact that the CoP members working on the project were happy to considere themselves as part of the "the community of patient care" created a strong intrinsic rewards for the regional sales staff working on the project. This demonstrates the creation of motivation with instrinsic rewards is important for radical innovations in organizations, especially for the Community of Practice or team with little power to allocate extrinsic rewards (see Liedtka, 1999).

Actions to cultivate a successful community of practice

see also: Online participation

What makes a community of practice succeed depends on the purpose and objective of the community as well as the interests and resources of the members of that community. Wenger identified seven actions that could be taken in order to cultivate communities of practice:

1. Design the community to evolve naturally - Because the nature of a Community of Practice is dynamic, in that the interests, goals, and members are subject to change, CoP forums should be designed to support shifts in focus.
2. Create opportunities for open dialog within and with outside perspectives - While the members and their knowledge are the CoP's most valuable resource, it is also beneficial to look outside of the CoP to understand the different possibilities for achieving their learning goals.
3. Welcome and allow different levels of participation - Wenger identifies 3 main levels of participation. 1) The core group who participate intensely in the community through discussions and projects. This group typically takes on leadership roles in guiding the group 2) The active group who attend and participate regularly, but not to the level of the leaders. 3) The peripheral group who, while they are passive participants in the community, still learn from their level of involvement. Wenger notes the third group typically represents the majority of the community.
4. Develop both public and private community spaces - While CoP's typically operate in public spaces where all members share, discuss and explore ideas, they should also offer private exchanges. Different members of the CoP could coordinate relationships among members and resources in an individualized approach based on specific needs.
5. Focus on the value of the community - CoP's should create opportunities for participants to explicitly discuss the value and productivity of their participation in the group.
6. Combine familiarity and excitement - CoP's should offer the expected learning opportunities as part of their structure, and opportunities for members to shape their learning experience together by brainstorming and examining the conventional and radical wisdom related to their topic.
7. Find and nurture a regular rhythm for the community - CoP's should coordinate a thriving cycle of activities and events that allow for the members to regularly meet, reflect, and evolve. The rhythm, or pace, should maintain an anticipated level of engagement to sustain the vibrancy of the community, yet not be so fast-paced that it becomes unwieldy and overwhelming in its intensity. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder 2002)

Social capital

Through informal connections participants make in their community of practice, and in the formal process of sharing their expertise, learning from others, and participating in the group, members are said to be acquiring social capital - or that trust that members build between themselves and others that can lead to better communication. Thus, CoPs are considered a way to gain social capital, especially to those members who demonstrate expertise and experience.

Benefits of social capital through communities of practice may include:

• Problem Defining
• Problem solving
• Developing new capabilities
• Leveraging best practices
• Standardizing practices
• Saving Time
• Increasing capabilities
• Avoiding mistakes
• Creating new knowledge

Collaboration

Collaboration is essential to ensuring that communities of practice thrive. Research has found that certain factors can indicate a higher level of collaboration in knowledge exchange in a business network (Sveiby & Simon 2002). Sveiby and Simons found that more seasoned colleagues tend to foster a more collaborative culture. Additionally,they noted that a higher educational level also predicts a tendency to favor collaboration.

See also

Contrast with: Project team

References

• Ardichvilli, Alexander; Page, Vaughn; Wentling, Tim (2008). "Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing in communities of practice". Journal of knowledge management 7: 64-77. 
• Cox, Andrew (2005). "What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works.". Journal of Information Science 31 (6): 527–540. 
• Brown, John Seely; Duguid, Paul (2000). "Balancing act: How to capture knowledge without killing it". Harvard Business Review. http://lymabe.edublogs.org/files/2007/04/balancing-act.doc. 
• Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 075067864X. 
• Davenport, Thomas H.; Prusak, Lawrence (2000). Working knowledge. How organizations manage what they know, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 1578513014. 
• Duguid, Paul (2005). "The Art of Knowing: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice". The Information Society (Taylor & Francis Inc.): pp. 109-118. 
• Grossman, P. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.. 103, 942–1012.: Teachers College Record,. ISBN 075067864X. 
• Hildreth, Paul; Kimble, Chris (2002). "The duality of knowledge". Information Research 8 (1). http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html. 
• Hildreth, Paul; Kimble, Chris (2004). Knowledge Networks: Innovation through Communities of Practice. London / Hershey: Idea Group Inc. ISBN 1-59140-200-X. http://www.chris-kimble.com/KNICOP/Chapters/Introduction.html. 
• Kimble, Chris; Hildreth, Paul; Bourdon, Isabelle (2008). Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators. Information Age Publishing. ISBN 1593118635. http://www.chris-kimble.com/CLEE/ToC.html. 
• Lave, Jean; Wenger, Etienne (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521423740. http://books.google.ca/books?id=CAVIOrW3vYAC. ; first published in 1990 as Institute for Research on Learning report 90-0013
• Lesser, L.E.; Storck, J. (2001). Communities of Practice and organizational performance. 40. IBM Systems Journal. http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/CoP_and_Organizational_Performance.pdf. 
• Polyani, Michael; Sen, Amartya (2009). The Tacit Dimension. University Of Chicago Press; Reissue edition. ISBN 0226672980. 
• Seely Brown, John; Duguid, Paul (1991). "Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation". Organization Science 2 (1). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634938?cookieSet=1. 
• Sveiby, Karl-Erik; Simon, Roland (2002). "Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work - an empirical study". Journal of Knowledge Management 6 (5): 420-433. ISBN 1367-3270. http://www.thestep.gr/trainmor/dat/%7B79fa8960-b459-4522-9166-adcb853b6322%7D/article.pdf. 
• Thomas, J.C.; Kellogg, W.A; Erickson, T. (2001). "The knowledge management puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledge management". IBM Systems Journal 40 (4): 863-884. http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~brooks/storybiz/thomas.pdf. 
• Tu, Chih-Hsiung (2002). "The management of social presence in an online learning environment". International Journal on E-learning April-June: 34-45. 
• Wasko, M.; Faraj, S. (2000). ""It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice". Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9: pp. 155-173. 
• Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66363-2. http://books.google.ca/books?id=heBZpgYUKdAC&dq=Communities+of+Practice:+Learning,+Meaning,+and+Identity&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=R4TcSoKDG4PclAeUhoCiAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false. 
• Wenger, Etienne; McDermott, Richard; Snyder, William M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice (Hardcover). Harvard Business Press; 1 edition. ISBN 978-1578513307. http://books.google.ca/books?id=m1xZuNq9RygC&dq=cultivating+communities+of+practice&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=o37cSrraN4zKlAe6lKmhAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false. 

Further reading

• Barton, T & Tursting, K, (2005). Beyond Communities of Practice: Language Power and Social Context, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83643-2
• Chua, Alton (October 2002). "Book Review: Cultivating Communities of Practice". Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. http://www.tlainc.com/articl45.htm. 
• Duguid, Paul (2005). The Art of Knowing: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice, University of California
• Duguid, Paul (2005). The information Society. 21. Taylor & Francis Inc.. pp. 109-118. 
• Gannon-Leary, P.M. & Fontainha, E. "Communities of Practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors" ELearning Papers 26 Sept 2007 [Accessed Nov 2007]
• Lesser, E.L., Fontaine, M.A. & Slusher J.A., Knowledge and Communities, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000
• Nonaka, Ikujiro (1991). "The knowledge creating company". Harvard Business Review 69 (6 Nov-Dec): 96-104. http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2007/07/the-knowledge-creating-company/es. 
• Saint-Onge, H & Wallace, D, Leveraging Communities of Practice, Butterworth Heinemann, 2003.
• Smith, M.K. (2003). "Communities of practice". The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm. 
• van Winkelen, Christine. "Inter-Organizational Communities of Practice". http://www.elearningeuropa.info/doc.php?id=1483&lng=1&doclng=1. 

External links

• Etienne Wenger: Communities of practice: a brief introduction