KNOWLEDGE-SHARING COMMUNITIES - Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice

riences. Hagel and Armstrong (1997) argued that virtual communities have economic as well as social significance. Like Rheingold, they recognize that virtual communities are based on the affinity among their participants that encourages them to participate in ongoing dialog with each other. Knowledge sharing between participants can generate “webs of personal communication”

that reinforce a sense of identification with the community.

Although the literature discusses virtual communities in abundant detail, the technology-mediated interactions were supplanted by a substantial amount of old-fashioned telephone exchanges, face-to-face meetings, and general “neigh- borlineness” (Rheingold, 1993). When videoconferencing first began to be widely used as an alternative to face-to-face business meetings, it was quickly found that this medium worked well but only after participants had met in person and established some sort of social presence. If participants met one another for the first time during a videoconference, or a teleconference for that matter, the interactions were much more awkward and slower, and the knowledge that was exchanged tended to be less significant (Hayden, Hanor, and Harrison, 2001). Psychologists have found that in face-to-face talks, only 7%

of the meaning is conveyed by words, while 38% is communicated by into- nation and 55% through visual cues and up to 87% of messages are inter- preted on a nonverbal, visual level (Telstra, 2000).

Seely Brown (2002) points out the neglect of the social aspects of knowledge sharing when he notes that documents do more than merely carry information. They “help structure society, enabling social groups to form, develop and maintain a sense of shared identity” (p. 189). The community-forming character of the Internet is by now quite well known. In fact, a number of tech- nologies that were originally intended to transmit information, such as the Minitel system in France that used to book travel and served as an electronic phone book, quickly became used as messaging systems between users. Simi- larly, transactional websites such as eBay and Amazon.com hold value not only in terms of their product offerings but also in the ability of visitors to the site to annotate content and thus communicate with other visitors.

Although technology is a feature of some communities, technological means of interacting are not a necessary component of communities. Technology comes into play when members are more dispersed and when they have fewer occasions to meet face to face. The critical components of a community lie in the sharing of common work problems between members, a membership that sees the clear benefits of sharing knowledge among themselves and that has developed norms of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation.

Types of Communities

All communities share some basic characteristics, regardless of the type of community. Wenger (1998) identifies these characteristics as joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire (see Figure 5-6).

Joint enterprise refers to the glue that binds members together—why they want to interact with one another. Reasons for interacting with one another will typically be a personal goal and contribution toward the community’s goal.

Mutual engagement refers to how members become part of the community.

They do not automatically belong because they say so, because they have a certain job title, or because they know someone. There are membership rules, and each member agrees to carry out certain roles and responsibilities in order to help achieve the goals of the CoP. Finally, a shared repertoire refers to the shared workspace in which members can communicate with one another, and store and share knowledge products, their profiles, and so on. The shared repertoire is typically space on a server; it may be an intranet within an organization or on the Internet. What is important is that there is a place for real- time exchanges and asynchronous discussions, and that these interactions leave behind tangible archives—the social capital and intellectual capital created by the community. All communities thus need shared cultural objects, a means of sharing them and a means of storing them.

In other words, networks form because people need one another to reach common goals. Mutual help, assistance, and reciprocity are common to all functioning networks. Another important characteristic is that these networks be not only self-organizing but also self-regulating. For example, no one

“decrees” that a community will exist (although many organizations have made this mistake). It is not a top-down formal organization as a task force or project team would be. There is no one person “in charge” of the community, although there may be founding members. Similarly, if someone is in it only for themselves, the other members will quickly realize this, as is illustrated by Hardin’s (1968) tragedy of the commons scenario.

F

IGURE

5-6

C

OMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF

C

P

A place to store stories artifacts, tools, discussions, glossaries

historical events Participation fueled by

trust, interest, credibility, professionalism, and

ethical behaviors

Common Goal

Virtual Workspace Commitment

Typically the improvement of members’ profession

Source: Adapted from Wenger, 1998.

There are many types of CoPs, and they are typically defined as a function of some common focal points such as:

■ A profession such as engineering, law, or medicine.

■ A work-related function or process such as production, distribution, marketing, sales, and customer service.

■ A recurring, nagging problem situated in a process or function.

■ A topic such as technology, knowledge retention, or innovation.

■ An industry such as automotive, banking, or healthcare.

A CoP may also be described in terms of its goals, such as the development of best practices or benchmarking. A CoP may be self-organizing or sponsored by the organization. It may also be distinguished on the basis of the type of recognition (or lack thereof) it has from the host organization (Wenger, 1998):

unrecognized, bootlegged, legitimized, supported, and institutionalized. These categories often reflect the maturity level of a community, but not all communities will necessarily aspire to become institutionalized (Iverson and McPhee, 2002).

An online community can take many forms, but most such communities will contain:

1. Member-generated content (e.g., profiles, home pages, ratings, reviews).

2. Member-to-member interaction (e.g., discussion forums, member yellow pages).

3. Events (e.g., guest events, expert seminars, virtual meetings, or demos).

4. Outreach (e.g., newsletters, volunteer/leader/mentoring programs, polls/

surveys).

T

RAGEDY OF THE

C

OMMONS

Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrange- ment may work satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carry- ing capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality and logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy. As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1. The negative impact is the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. However, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen;

the negative utility for any particular herdsman is only a fraction of -1. The only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd, and another, and so forth. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein lies the tragedy.

It is important to distinguish a community of practice from other groups such as work teams or project groups. Many online communities may be termed communities of interest because they have an open membership that is catalyzed by interest in a common theme such as a hobby. A community of practice is more like a professional organization. CoPs have a business case, a code of ethics, a mission statement, and so forth. They are there for a reason, and they produce results that are of value to the profession. Typically, a CoP goal would have something to do with the improvement of the common profession or professional theme of interest to members. However, the manner in which they are formed is quite unlike a professional organization, as communities self-organize and emerge in a bottom-up manner.

Roles and Responsibilities in CoPs

Communities consist of people, not technology (Cook, 1999). Community members may take an active role by contributing to discussions or providing assistance to other members. This is referred to as “participation.” Other members may simply read what others have posted without taking an active role themselves. These types of members used to be referred to as “lurkers,”

but given the somewhat derogatory connotation of the term, this has been replaced by “legitimate peripheral participation.”

In almost every case, the more participation that occurs in the community, the greater the value created for both community members and community creators. However, it is important to keep in mind that in most communities, readers outnumber posters by 10 : 1 or more. People who visit a community regularly but who do not post anything typically represent 90% or more of the total community participation. Passive members are not really passive in most cases, for they may be actively using and applying the content they have accessed online.

Kim (2000) lists the key roles as (1) visitors, (2) novices, (3) regulars, (4) leaders, and (5) elders.

Visitorsmay visit once or twice and may or may not join. At this point, they are merely curious and are seeking to find out what the community is all about.

Novicesare new members, who typically keep to themselves at first until they have learned enough about the community and the other members. At this point, they become regulars, members who provide regular contributions and who interact with other members on a sustained basis. Leaders are members who have the time and energy to take on more official roles such as helping with the operation of the community. Eldersare akin to subject matter experts:

they are familiar with the professional theme and the community, and they have become respected sources of both subject matter knowledge and cultural knowledge. Elders maintain the community history and agree to be consulted from time to time by other community members.

Communities of practice require a number of key roles to be filled. These need not necessarily be a single individual working full-time. More often, they are revolving roles much like everyone taking a turn at being a scribe at business meetings today. However, real work remains to be done in order for the community to succeed, and this translates into real time. Depending on the

type of organization, the number of members, and other scope variables, a good rule of thumb is to budget 10 to 20% of a knowledge worker’s time as being devoted to CoP work.

Nickols (2000) defines more official community roles. The major CoP roles include a champion, a sponsor, a facilitator, a practice leader, a knowledge service center or office (KSO), and members. The championensures support at the highest possible level, communicates the purpose, promotes the community, and ensures impact. The sponsorserves as the bridge between the CoP and the rest of the formal organization, communicates the company’s support for a CoP, and may remove barriers such as time, funding, and other resources.

The sponsor is instrumental in establishing the mission and expected outcomes for the community. Community members are recruited for their expertise relevant to the practice or strategic services. They are there to better share knowledge, know-how, and best practices that will benefit the business through active participation. They participate in discussions, raising issues and concerns regarding common needs and requirements, alert other members to any changes in conditions and requirements, are on the lookout for ways to enhance CoP effectiveness (e.g., by recruiting high-value members), and, above all, they learn.

CoP facilitators have perhaps the most demanding role. They are responsible for clarifying communications and for making sure that everyone partici- pates and that dissident views are heard and understood. They are the chief organizers of events such as meetings (face-to-face as well as virtual meetings).

They administrate all communications by drawing out reticent members, rec- onciling opposing points of view, posing questions to further discussion, and keeping discussions on topic. The practice leader is the acknowledged leader of the CoP “themes.” The leader provides thought leadership for the practice or strategic service, validates innovations and best practices, and promotes adherence to them. He or she identifies emerging patterns and trends in CoP activities and knowledge base as well as in other areas that may impact the practice. Leaders resolve conflicts, evaluate CoP performance with respect to expectations, approve memberships, and lead the way in prioritizing issues and improvements to be tackled. CoP practice leaders serve as models to coach other members, or they arrange to provide coaching, and they are always alert to the potential need for CoP changes (e.g., more members, different members, and different member composition).

CoP knowledge services are information/knowledge integrators who serve to interface with all CoPs to ensure clarity and lack of duplication of the information disseminated within and from the CoPs. They maintain information- sharing relationships with all CoPs, inform CoP members about relevant activities elsewhere, and inform others about relevant CoP activities. The knowledge center coordinates information from CoP members to avoid duplication, redundancies, and poor quality (e.g., in postings to CoP websites and forums), and they filter knowledge and requests for help (e.g., yellow pages).

Finally, all members of the CoP share responsibility for marketing and promoting the CoP, generating interest in it, promoting enthusiasm among current members, and demonstrating its value. Everyone must ensure continued support and resources from sponsor(s), recruit high-potential prospective

members, and invite them to special CoP events. Members are expected to better leverage the knowledge created and learning generated by the CoP, to write and publish articles or results descriptions in company publications, and to publish articles in external journals or magazines and then distribute them internally.

In addition, some new types of roles arise from CoPs such as membership managers, discussion moderators, knowledge editors, knowledge librarians, archivists, usage analysts, and knowledge brokers. A CoP membership manager has to deal with the registration and ongoing membership directory work. A CoP moderator is much like a radio/TV show host, serving as a con- versation manager who helps keep discussions focused, injects new topics and provocative points of view when discussion lags, and seeds discussion with appropriate content. Moderators must often be critical in order to ensure value generation. A knowledge editor collects, sanitizes, and synthesizes content created, and provides a value-added link for the content produced. A knowl- edge librarianor community taxonomist is responsible for organizing and man- aging the collection of knowledge objects generated by the community. A knowledge archivistmaintains and organizes content generated by participants over time. A CoP usage analyststudies data on participants’ behaviors within the community and makes recommendations to the moderator. Finally, a knowledge broker is someone who can join up with a number of different communities in order to identify commonalities and redundancies, create synergy, form alliances, and feed in to organizational memory and learning (e.g., map of intellectual assets, yellow pages, or expertise directory, CoP best practices, and lessons learned).

Finally, some new roles and structures will be set up at the organizational level. For example, the World Bank (see: http://www.worldbank.org/ks/) has more than 100 thematic groups, which is the term used for communities of practice. A KM Board oversees all CoPs. It is a small central unit (5 members) that has overall coordination and facilitation duties for synergies and redundancies in the CoPs, opportunities for cross-CoP sharing, feeding the organization memory, and assessing the value of each CoP. A governance body (KM Council) is responsible at the corporate level for overall KM policy formula- tion.

Knowledge management at CIDA (Canadian International Develop- ment Agency) was inspired by the World Bank. CIDA has implemented over 400 best practices, lessons learned, and 30 communities of practice (see http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/0/7D4E485700F8511B85256 E910045D3D2?OpenDocument).

Branch-sharing activities are coordinated through the CIDA KM Secretariat.

The CIDA KM Secretariat in the Senior VP’s office has a staff of four to five, which enables better knowledge sharing within and among branches. This office works closely with two organizations: (1) the Branch KM Leaders group, which has a representative from each of the 13 agency branches, and develops the KM agenda, expected results, communication strategy, and specific KM issues; and (2) the Network (CoP) Leaders group, which consists of the leaders of each pilot CoP network, and helps networks learn from each other, achieve their objectives, share lessons learned, and solve problems.

C

ANADIAN

I

NTERNATIONAL

D

EVELOPMENT

A

GENCY

(CIDA)

CIDA³focuses on the dissemination of information, results, and lessons learned. CIDA was spending about $100 million on repeating and rein- venting knowledge the organization already had. Knowledge is created through bringing together partners and shareholders in the organization around issues and practices to produce new ideas, perspectives, and insights.

In the application of knowledge, CIDA has requested that partners and shareholders collaborate online on specific projects. As part of the Canadian government, CIDA needs to make all information and services available to citizens electronically through a project called Government Online. This means making information such as immigration services, goods and trade, and development assistance available outside of Canada as well.

CIDA uses an extranet, which is a culmination of the various intranets and the Internet. Access is controlled to promote free-flowing discussion and information sharing. CIDA uses its extranets to promote knowledge sharing through its Partners Forum, Field Representatives Forum, and Strategic Information Management Forum. Finally, regional forums allow different CIDA branches to share among themselves. The first step is to disseminate information that can be used as formal or explicit knowledge. The second step is to encourage members of each extranet to develop new knowledge through online discussions. The third step entails the implementation of this new knowledge in the design, development, and management of specific projects. The goal is to harvest the results of this implementation effort and to disseminate those results as formal/explicit knowledge through the Agency’s intranet. To date, CIDA has documented about 4000 best practices and lessons learned.

CIDA has about 30 CoPs involving about 1200 people. A KM Forum was organized involving about 150 people from various departments and partners. These networks are the primary knowledge-sharing vehicles within CIDA. CIDA management now provides support to the CoPs and has developed expert directories to promote interaction from both within and outside the organization. CIDA is currently involved in using profiling and meta- data to map and identify appropriate forms of access to knowledge and expertise within the agency. An example is the Online Project Management, which develops tools to support KM within the organization. CIDA is also extending knowledge skills to its partners and is encouraging interaction between them through its Strategic Information Management Forum initiative.

Knowledge Sharing in Virtual CoPs

The establishment of a community identity depends heavily on knowledge sharing. Even something as simple as an online or paper newsletter will provide the backbone for a community to develop. A sense of community arises from reading the same text, the same article, and the same announcement as

Dalam dokumen Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice (Halaman 137-146)