Almost the first thing that gets built when anything needs management is a good measurement system. It allows tuning, enables detection of deviations from norm, and gives feedback on the effect of changes and initiatives.

Communities of practice are complex creatures, and thus their measurement is not simple. The number of perspectives that can be used is enormous. At the same time, the availability of data for each of them is very different, and the temptation to use subjective management impressions is high.

So the history of CoP management is full of references to indicator-building, to attempts at significant reporting, and to a wide variety of more or less objective measurements. But we have not found a coherent, complete set of measurements that could be used to consistently evaluate not just one CoP, but a set of them, and eventually even to benchmark different ones, along most of the lines that can be affected by management.

So we've attempted to put forth a simple, practical list and brief explanation of straightforward indicators that can be implemented in most CoPs, and especially in those with an online component. The first result of it is the linked white paper, but it should not be the last one.

The Macuarium Set of CoP Measurements describes a quite comprehensive set of indicators, but it's centered about the ones that we have most experience with: the activity and relevance indicators that (we believe) are like a thermometer of the inner working health of a CoP. Of course, improvements on these indicators are possible, but we have found them reliable and interesting, and useful in growing our CoPs to very high activity and impact.

But that is not a complete picture. Nowadays CoP management information needs require not only data about CoP health, but about the relationship between the CoP and the hosting environment or organization. CoPs are increasingly a corporate tool, and as such their value depends on that relationship. At Macuarium, however, our core expertise is multi-organizational or open CoPs, so we are looking to complement our indicators with more detailed and proven sets from other practitioners' experiences.

In other words: we would appreciate not just comments about the document itself and its contents but concrete, practical ideas to complement the "value generation" sets, and others that may be improved, from hands-on, experienced no-nonsense CoP operators and managers.

The ultimate aim is to drop the "Macuarium" from the paper name, and limit it to a particular Set within a wider and more complete "Book of Measurements" from more authors.

The paper is here for your reading and (hopefully) comment and collaboration: http://www.knowledgeboard.com/lib/3149

Best regards,

Miguel