Beginning with its roots in anthropology, communities of practice (CoPs) have been studied by many since Wenger and Lave first introduced the concept in 1991. CoPs can be defined as “a group of people having common identity [and] professional interests and that undertake to share, participate and establish a fellowship” (Pickett as cited in Dalkir, 2005, p. 112). Dalkir (2005) describes CoPs as typically informally-created groups centered around a common focus or goal, whether a profession, work function, problem, topic, or industry; furthermore, members’ commitment is driven by trust and professional behaviors/practices (p. 124) and they typically possess a virtual workspace in which “to store stories, artifacts, tools, discussions, glossaries, [and] historical events” (p. 125). The study of CoPs began with predominantly ethnographic studies, progressed through to qualitative studies, and then more recently has expanded into quantitative studies that are attempting to display a link between CoPs and improvements in organizational performance. This paper will take a chronological look at these developments, ending with a critical analysis of the major theorists and their contributions.
Theoretical Works
Wenger is considered by many to be the seminal theorist on CoPs and has published much on the subject. Through an impressive ethnographic study in his dissertation, Wenger (1990) began his investigation into the characteristics of communities and the people and practices that make up those communities. In 1991, Wenger first published on the subject of CoPs. His article introduced the idea of “learning as a social phenomenon… [where] information only takes meaning in the context of the social practices of the communities that give it cultural life… [Furthermore,] through our membership in their communities…we come to know—and be empowered by what we know” (Wenger, 1991, p. 83). This concept was further reinforced in Wenger’s work that year with Lave where they first identified the CoP concept in their “research toward a ‘social theory of learning’” (Zboralski, Salomo, & Gemuendon, 2006, p. 535). In addition to learning as a social phenomenon, Wenger (1991) provided recommendations for “managers who want to leverage the power of the social communities within their corporations” (p. 83-84). He also introduced his organization, the Institute for Research on Learning (IRL), as a CoP that would be exploring these concepts. Interestingly, IRL was a not-for-profit initially funded by the Xerox Corporation that resulted in the development of the concepts of distributed intelligence, cognitive apprenticeships, communities of learners, and—most significantly—communities of practice (Pea, n.d.). Wenger was a research scientist at IRL from 1987 to 1997 (Wenger, n.d.).
In 1997, Snyder built on Wenger’s and others’ early work by identifying CoPs as a tool for enhancing organizational learning, building organizational competencies, and improving organizational performance. To support this claim, Snyder (1997) argued that “competencies in the current environment are rarely static, so high-performance [CoPs] engage in continuous learning activities to ensure that competencies are built, shared, and applied effectively” (p. 8-9). Furthermore, CoPs:
…are aligned with competencies…they both enact competencies…and develop and renew competencies through a variety of learning activities. [They] “also constitute influential organization conditions…that influence communication and coordination… [and] are aligned, therefore, with several of the factors associated with a performance-based model of organizational learning. (Snyder, 1997, p. 9)
Snyder’s most important contribution in his 1997 article was the introduction of a “set of [33] testable hypotheses about how communities of practice influence performance, how they learn competence, and what conditions facilitate competence development” (p. 14). These 33 hypotheses can be used to test the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance. In fact, this set of hypotheses for testing the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance went on to encourage many research efforts including those by Lesser & Prusak; Dove; Lorenz; Smith & McKeen; Webb, Wunram, Lettice & Klein; Lucas; and more.
In 2002, Snyder and Wenger collaborated (along with McDermott) on the writing of the seminal book Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. In it, they introduced seven design principles for CoPs:
1. Design for evolution
2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
3. Invite different levels of participation View image
4. Develop both public and private community spaces
5. Focus on value
6. Combine familiarity and excitement
7. Create a rhythm for the community
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 51)
This work also led to the creation of Wenger’s quick start-up guide that succinctly presented the major concepts related to CoPs (View image) (Wenger, 2002). Then in 2004, Wenger reinforced his earlier proposition of the social nature of knowledge by arguing that “communities of practice [are] the social fabric of knowledge” (p. 1). He further described the three elements of a community of practice (domain, community, and practice) and defined the role of management sponsorship to “enable communities to thrive and have an impact on the performance of the organization” (Wenger, 2004, p. 7).
Applied Research
Where the previous theoretical works helped to define what a CoP is and how one should be designed and managed, applied research aided in identifying what problems CoPs can solve. Snyder (1997) referred to the role of early CoP case studies completed by Brown & Gray, Cook & Yanow, Orr, Snyder, and Wenger in demonstrating “that learning occurs most effectively within communities that have developed trust, shared understanding of problems, and a language to communicate new and old solutions” (p. 9). Ever since, CoPs have been identified as an effective knowledge management application in numerous case studies, providing useful examples and best practices for how to design and foster CoPs in organizations. For example, DaimlerChrysler found CoPs “to be an efficient means to achieve business process improvement and manage complexity” by improving the flow and sharing of knowledge throughout the organization (Kannan, Aulbur, & Haas, 2005, p. 138). Ericsson Research Canada used online CoPs, finding them to be “a complete KM concept anchored in the people domain and supported by suitable technology” (Hemre, 2005, p. 157). Baria (2005) shared that Rolls-Royce has seen CoPs provide numerous benefits to “both the business and the individual” (p. 253) and have found that having a corporate CoP leader strengthens CoP activity (p. 246). And New Zealand has used predominantly virtual CoPs as an effective means of encouraging “inter-organizational knowledge networking on a national scale” (Rao, 2005, p. 206; Spence, 2005).
In additional applied research, Choi (2006) examined the potential of CoPs as an alternative learning model for knowledge creation and performance training in corporations; Choi also acknowledged CoPs as a key engine for creating and sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge. Choi (2006) also identified factors that facilitate or encourage CoP activity including “learning motivation and desire for learning, creation of work-related knowledge and sharing of expertise in CoP participation, relationship between theme and outcome of CoP and performance, trust among members, and the leadership trait of the team leader” (p. 144-145). Later in 2006, Zboralski et al. defined potential positive performance effects of CoPs including knowledge, business performance, and socialization (View image). They also developed a measurement model to evaluate the CoP constructs of information exchange, networking, network position, knowledge effect, business performance effect, and socialization (View image). Importantly, Zboralski et al. (2006) demonstrated “that CoPs have a close connection and positive direct impact on business performance” (p. 547) by quantitatively proving CoP members with a strong network position due to their involvement in a CoP have a positive effect on the knowledge base, the business performance, and the socialization between staff.
Critical Analysis
As we turn now to a critical analysis of the theoretical works and applied research, let us focus on Wenger’s contributions from the theoretical perspective and Zboralski et al.’s contributions from an applied research perspective.
Wenger
Bearing in mind that the scope of this paper did not allow for a detailed review of all of Wenger’s work, the materials reviewed were somewhat disappointing. Strong points of Wenger’s work included his solid work to conceptualize CoPs and emphasize the need for them to be very flexible, organic, and evolving in nature. In addition, his writing is approachable and appealing to readers, with many statements possessing good face validity, e.g., “intuitively, everybody knows what knowledge is. When you have it, you are likely to understand situations and do the right thing; when you don’t, you are in trouble” (Wenger, 2004, p. 1). However, his published work (including the materials cited in this paper) focuses more on the practitioner than the scholar; thus some of Wenger’s materials are sometimes lacking in scholarly rigor. For example, much of his published work is targeted to practitioners and most of his articles and materials were not published in peer-reviewed journals. (A search for peer-reviewed CoP articles that Wenger authored revealed only one article that he co-wrote with Eckert in 2005, and reading his detailed CV revealed that a very small percentage of his articles and papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals.) Despite this, Wenger’s material has become the seminal work on CoPs—as supported by the number of citations of Wenger’s work in CoP research articles plus Wenger’s own biography that claims “Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, [is] a seminal book that lays out the theory of communities of practice” (Wenger, n.d.).
Wenger’s 2004 article was particularly disappointing. While the “doughnut” analogy for his model (View image) may make it feel more accessible to practitioners, he may be doing a disservice to the discipline of knowledge management—made all the worse by the fact that he begins the article stating that the field has had to deal with numerous skeptics and detractors. But then he goes on to state, “I will argue that when it comes to knowledge, management is a doughnut…and noting that the center of the doughnut is empty, I will argue that knowledge management is primarily the business of those who actually make the dough—the practitioners” (Wenger, 2004, p. 1). Again, perhaps this is an approachable analogy, but the light-heartedness of its description may make the reader question if knowledge management is a respectable discipline. Then in looking more closely at the writing of this article, the model is not directly linked to the structure of the paper, causing significant confusion and further making the doughnut model questionable. Further, Wenger (2004) missed opportunities to reinforce the model by not illustrating such statements as “this defines two paths between strategy and performance: business processes and communities of practices” on the model itself (p. 8). Ensuring the article’s structure directly followed the model (e.g., with consistent terminology and labeling of sub-sections) and illustrating all the concepts on the model would have greatly improved the quality and coherence of Wenger’s article and model. A final problem area is that Wenger lists key issues and questions at the end of each sub-section, yet does not address what actions should be taken to address these issues.
Zboralski et al.
In contrast, Zboralski et al.’s (2006) article was particularly impressive for not only its contribution to quantitatively proving a relationship between CoPs and organizational performance, but also in its thorough scholarly approach. The article begins with a very thorough literature review, establishing a strong relation between Zboralski et al.’s research and the existing body of knowledge. However, like most research projects in the social sciences, there were some weaker areas. For example, Zboralski et al.’s sampling is somewhat problematic. Within the selected multinational company, there were 220 CoPs that met the researchers’ criteria; yet over a four month timeframe they were only able to get questionnaire responses representing 36 of those CoPs. The researchers claimed that their coverage of “about 31% of all active community members…can be considered a valid representation of the overall population” (Zboralski et al., 2006, p. 542). However, it is not entirely clear by what objective criteria this claim can be made. The questionnaire for their measurement model was pre-tested, resulting in revisions prior to releasing the questionnaire to the sample population. However, the authors did acknowledge that a common method bias could not be ruled out. In addition, the study is somewhat limited in that it was based on one German multinational company with an extensive number of CoPs, and the measures were based on the CoP members’ perception of the CoPs’ effects on organizational performance. Overall, Zboralski et al.’s conclusions were justified by the results; however, they could be strengthened further by replicating the research with other companies plus comparing the results to the perceptions of non-members of CoPs or to objective performance measures that could not be influenced by the participants’ perception.
Conclusion
In completing this review and critical analysis of the literature on CoPs, it has been intriguing to see the different roles and contributions of the early theoretical works and the later applied research works. It is also fascinating to see the evolution of CoPs from an ethnographic dissertation to one of the most common knowledge management applications utilized by organizations today. Most significantly, it is encouraging to see the efforts of researchers to move from a theoretical base to quantifiable proof, thereby strengthening the professional discipline of knowledge management.
References:
Baria, D. (2005). A day in the life of a Rolls-Royce knowledge manager. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques (pp. 246-254). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Choi, M. (2006). Communities of practice: An alternative learning model for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 143-146.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hemre, A. (2005). Building and sustaining communities of practice at Ericsson Research Canada. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques (pp. 155-165). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kannan, G., Aulbur, W., & Haas, R. (2005). Knowledge management in practice: Making technology work at DaimlerChrysler. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques, Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pea, R. (n.d.). IRL. Retrieved January 19, 2008 from http://www.stanford.edu/~roypea/HTML1%20Folder/irl.html
Rao, M. (Ed.). (2005). Knowledge management tools and techniques. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Snyder, W. (1997). Communities of practice: Combining organizational learning and strategy insights to create a bridge to the 21st century. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/cols.shtml
Spence, P. (2005). Knowledge networking on a national scale: A New Zealand case study. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques (pp. 206-213). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wenger, E. (1990). Toward a theory of cultural transparency: Elements of a social discourse of the visible and the invisible. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California.
Wenger, E. (1991, Fall). Communities of practice: Where learning happens. Benchmark, pp. 82-84.
Wenger, E. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A quick start-up guide. Retrieved January 9, 2008 from http://www.entreculturas.pt/Media/start-up_guide_PDF.pdf
Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, 68(3), 1-8.
Wenger, E. (n.d.). Full CV. Retrieved January 19, 2008 from http://www.ewenger.com/bio/biocv.htm
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. In Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge (chap. 3). Retrieved January 9, 2008 from http://www.askmecorp.com/pdf/7Principles_CoP.pdf
Zboralski, K., Salomo, S., & Gemuendon, H.G. (2006). Organizational benefits of communities of practice: A two-stage information processing model. Cybernetics & Systems, 37(6), 533-552.
- Robin
Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com
