Relevance and participation in Communities of Practice - Relaunching a CoP
16-Oct-03
Miguel Cornejo, the founder of Macuarium, is arguing that relevance and participation are the key characteristics of successful communities. Until the 20th of October, Miguel is at your disposal answering your questions and discussing your comments. Just add comments to this article, Miguel will answer them asynchronous during the week. Join the discussion!
Details
Attachments: 1
-
Q&A with Miguel Cornejo (955 Kb)Q&A with Miguel Cornejo06-Oct-03
- Author:
- Dr. Patricia Wolf
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 16-Oct-03
- Categories:
- Communities and Collaboration, CoPs
- Sections:
- News
This article has been read 5206 times.
Tools
Member comments (21)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
Cases of integration
Hi Jozefa, all,
the Q&A is over, and most questions aswered as far as I can :-), but I've been looking for stories of efficient CoP and "library-KM" integration these last weeks, to answer Jozefa's request.
I couldn't look very far, but I looked at the ones I could. I've found NOT ONE big, complex system with a "traditional", taxonomy-based KM side (doc classification, update) and a healthy CoP that did active use of each other. In most cases, both sides exist "in spite" of each other, and taxonomists see a problem in CoPs, while CoP users find most classified docs irrelevant and difficult to find, and prefer direct conversation with the relevant people.
The closest I've seen is Apple's Knowledge Base use by their communities of users. But it's a one-way process most of the time.
We did a small project for the Spanish tax service that was the other way round: we wrote a small user manual for an application, put it online, set up a support service that joined telephone, email and forum... and daily improved the documentation with every new problem or situation, and its fix. Eventually (months) the reference manual stabilised, and by searching it or the forum (or asking there) most users found answers to their own questions so speedily that the costly, step-by-step phone calls diminished enormously, and the email questions also went down a lot.
But this was a small application. Try doing that with every process (or knowledge object, or user manual) in an organization ;-). Or try simply to get the support people of any telco to update their guides in a similar way. It'd be a nice project... but it's easier to teach an elephant to break dance.
BTW, the user manual was not formally integrated in the KM system of the Spanish tax service ;-), and has not been updated since the end of the project. It's now almost useless.
Best regards,
Miguel
TRUST AND COLLABORATIVE WORKING
Miguel et al,
I also feel that the ongoing identification of expectations is of great importance and would concur with you that this is something that needs to be consistent and systems adapted accordingly, as these DO change over time and in different contexts.
My experience of establishing community working is limited so far to non-technological groupings where the emphasis has been on having ‘human portals’ who signpost, direct and informally facilitate a group of ever-changing participants in a healthcare setting. I think you would call these ‘volunteer facilitators’. They were specifically employed for their ‘people skills’ rather than their technology skills (which they have further developed over time) and sit outside of any IT department.
The success of these CoPs, or more accurately, CoLs (Communities of Learning is a more accurate term for what these have become) so far has been because of the build up of trust and social interaction between the Knowledge Management co-ordinators and the users (healthcare staff). That said, they have needed ongoing support and guidance, especially when faced with rejection and resistance from staff members, other departments and management.
A point I raised in a previous post and one I raise again, is the focus of the interdependency between departments such as IT, HR, Research, Librarians and Communication/Corporate development to drive such community building work forward.
What has been sadly lacking across my particular community has been the collaborative working at a more strategic level to underpin this work. Our success - based upon users comments and 'physical hits' - has been despite this rather than because of it.
I am interested in some tangible evidence as to how others are integrating their KM/CoPs/CoLs strategies across departmental divides, and their success to date….
Expectations, values, motivations (II)
(... continued from previous)
Patricia commented: "(...) CoPs need to create value both for its members and for the sponsoring organization in order to thrive. At least, if we are only talking about officially sponsored organisational CoPs and ignoring the informal ones."
Let's not forget that even informal CoPs (or just extra-organizational CoPs; they can be quite formal) need funding. For events, for websites, lists, facilitation, whatever. The bigger and better the CoP, the more expensive. Someone has to pay for it, and it is not frequent to find a way to make CoP members shoulder the full cost.
But a lot of organizations are usually benefited by the CoP's results, when it's external. Some can be drawn in as sponsors, some as advertisers... but in any case, you need to create value for them too.
About the thesis, let's hope you will find the sponsor to translate it... but also to a short excerpt of the data and ideas ;-). It may be a good promotional tool.
About Józefa, Patricia and managing expectations. I don't think the matter is out of the subject at all :-).
Patricia said that "From my point of view, identifying expectations can't be done only in a kick off workshop. It needs in deep observation and integration into the organisation. The problem is that both consultants and organisations are not used to such a long process, they are keen to get quick results."
I agree in part. Expectations need to be continuously managed, not just at the start: the CoP evolves, the resources and people evolve, the CoP effectiveness is reality-checked. And as more people join in, their expectations need to be brought into line so as to avoid problems. This leads to a continuos new-member information process, and to management's continuous attention to the matter in relations with all stakeholders.
Further: it's not just members and organizations who have expectations. One key part of most CoPs are volunteer facilitators: they do a lot of the actual human relationship work and (frequently) a lot of the reification and writing. Some just expect to help out at a project they like. Some expect professional recognition and promotion. Some just want tp enrich their job with some responsibilities. But some will want to have a voice and an influence in the CoP management. These expectations need to be managed (tempered, if it is not possible) and information about the details of their role must be crystal clear to prevent demotivation.
Some will have commercial interests. It is important to detect them early on, since most external commercial interests will eventually impair them as impartial facilitators... and may even conflict with the goals of the CoP. It's a bad motivation for CoP work, but it's worse if it's not known and managed.
Best regards,
Miguel
Expectations, values, motivations
We're gathering steam here :-). Thanks to all present.
Robert, about the human relationship element you would "(...) say that the passion and dedication from those running the site are probably the most important factors. (...) How can these people either engender trust or overcome internal disruptive processes that fight against the creation of a knowledge network? How do you fit into that subculture, as outlined below, without compromising your potential or that passion? (...) (As in print publications (is a CoP a publication?), the editor shapes the style with regard to commercial and audience considerations. The commercial consideration could be improving internal procedures within a political minefield. The audience considerations are trying to guide users through those minefields. (...))"
Well, I guess there are as many methods as CoP coordinators :-), or editors (yes, I think a CoP is a publication, when it produces and publishes reifications such as articles, studies, guides, event reports... and it is a very cheap and effective publication too). I'd just suggest three things:
- A stable criteria for what the CoP aims to do, and how. What is off-topic, what isn't. What is well-regarded, what not. What will get the time and support of management, and what can't count on it. What are the management's reactions to different types of misbehaviour. Rules need to be clear in all these respects, or trust in the management (and by extension, participation) will drop a lot.
- Ability to deliver on projects and compromises. Choose few management-sponsored projects, and push them to fruition reliably. That will garner confidence in the CoP's ability to produce good results.
- Be clear and consistent on what's sacred and what isn't. Those things you will not change whatever happens... and that can be described as "values", "ideology" or "editorial line". (For instance: at Macuarium we think that EVERYONE is entitled to be treated with respect regardless of views or beliefs -his/her opinions are another matter-, and regardless of internal or external corporate interests). This allows for a "personality" to develop, so members and external entities learn to know what to expect, and can trust the coP. Consistent values gain respect. Appropriate ones give efficiency.
Also, you mentioned importance of "the 'reification' process that (I think) Wenger talked about - some document, plan or event that will focus the minds of the participants/lurkers.(...) And, in turn, you have to make such items compelling and relevant.".
Yes. A suggested starting point: don't make (many of) those items. Let the CoP members come up with ideas, and involve them closely in the development of a result (be it a document, a meeting, a service...). Be a steward at least as much as a leader.
(continued...)
Individual efforts are most rewarded
It's a great article Miguel - I'd certainly agree that relevance and participation are the two most important elements. I'd like to bring up your last point - the human relationship element.
Having worked in communities for a few years now, and not in the consultant/researcher end, I'd say that the passion and dedication from those running the site are probably the most important factors. Not only can this influence the organization's belief/leap of faith in a community, it will inspire others to involvement. This individual passion - the key concern - is like gold dust. To hyopthesise - Organizations can see the value of CoPs through excellent research available - but do they realise the importance of the individuals involved, and the support structures they need to flourish? How can these people either engender trust or overcome internal disruptive processes that fight against the creation of a knowledge network? How do you fit into that subculture, as outlined below, without compromising your potential or that passion?
(As in print publications (is a CoP a publication?), the editor shapes the style with regard to commercial and audience considerations. The commercial consideration could be improving internal procedures within a political minefield. The audience considerations are trying to guide users through those minefields. You see the problems already!)
On another point, I personally think that online communities need to think more about the 'customer journey', from welcome email to hundredth posting. Miguel's site is a good example - and I'm a supporter of personal rankings on contributions, which surely can be linked to other business incentives?
Another element that is important in sustaining communities is, I believe, the 'reification' process that (I think) Wenger talked about - some document, plan or event that will focus the minds of the participants/lurkers. What's your view on the business plan? Are you going to the meeting next week? And, in turn, you have to make such items compelling and relevant.
The D+C work sounds fantastic - it would be great if it could be translated into English at some point, reviewing the 'reality' of CoPs is tremendously useful.
Thanks
Identifying expectations
To Martin: Yes, the D + C story is proving you hypothesis that CoPs need to create value both for its members and for the sponsoring organization in order to thrive. At least, if we are only talking about officially sponsored organisational CoPs and ignoring the informal ones.
To Martin and Miguel: My doctor thesis will be published in German language by the end of this year. Until this moment, I did not find a sponsor for translating it into English :-(. And I can't translate it by myself, due to my level of English language and the 317 pages it consists of.
To Josefa: I really much like your argument that the importance of managing expectations can't be over emphasised. That's a field where we really need more and better practice. From my point of view, identifying expectations can't be done only in a kick off workshop. It needs in deep observation and integration into the organisation. The problem is that both consultants and organisations are not used to such a long process, they are keen to get quick results. For us as consultants/researchers that means that we need to develop methods, tools, skills and abilities for understanding what is behind the behaviour and the official arguments of the CoP members in a really short time frame. Would love to discuss that further if it's not to much out of scope of this Q&A topic.
CoPs for OD
Hi, Józefa,
maybe I can find an interesting case for you, if I can convince the project manager to write it.
About your message, yes, CoPs can have a use for Organizational Development (as I understand it).
In Health Care, you can find independent and sponsored practitioner CoPs, both internal and cross-organizational. Medical services and insurers' websites often sponsor these communities, and some regional health authorities, and even hospitals, have their own. These CoPs do have an effect on the way the organization members work and relate with their organization.
It's not just the agilization of recognition (of good people and good ideas) in thick-layered, or fast-changing organizations. That will be very motivating in places where there is no other way to get your views implemented, or your problem listened to.
Also CoPs can dynamically shape processes and practices. Very often, practices and norms in geographically disperse health organizations are not defined in extensive detail, and a simple discussion on a CoP can bring forth a new way of doing things. And not just in paperwork: the use of combinations of drugs, or the way to prevent fraud in social security documents, can improve with the exchange of information in a CoP of rural doctors.
Even more serious organizational impact can be wrought when the CoP starts talking about the support and administration processes. Improvements and suggestions (and some unproductive criticism, if mishandled) and volunteered evaluations can be very useful in OD... and key in a good restructuring and BPR.
Hope to have answered at least part of the question :-).
Best regards,
Miguel
CoPs can be a useful OD tool?
The framework I have been working on has been built around healthcare groupings - using eLearning and KM to underpin their development - in geographical locations, across professional, sector and organisational boundaries. This was part of a wider OD plan, from research to support the county-wide change to a health economy landscape.
The OD plan was not only about the emergence of new organisational boundaries, but also about recruitment and retention of healthcare staff, and utilisation of their valuable skills and expertise during a period of major disruption and change.
Upon reflection, my key learning points:
1)The importance of managing expectations (organisational and individual perspective) cannot be over emphasised. Collaborative working goes in and out of favour and usually comes back when new governmental dictats deem it necessary. There was, in my project, a general lack of trust, openness and capacity, which of course is a vital factor.
2)Team and individual rewards in the public sector also need careful consideration I used the three specific motivational factors (after Ron Cacciope, 1999):
MONEY/PRIZES/GIFTS
RECOGNITION/AWARDS
DEVELOPMENTAL/EMPOWERING
MONEY/GIFTS should have been the most important factor in a sector woefully underpaid, this has not been the case. Instead a need to have a culture and structure that supported DEVELOPMENT/EMPOWERMENT (yuk!) of individuals to make a difference in hierarchical bureaucratic public sector life. Some say culture needs to be changed to support CoPs, what I find more applicable to public sector is to respect and work within existing sub cultures and to find motivators that are context specific in each one.
RECOGNITION by the management is the defining factor for motivating better participation (Cornejo), who need to build in ways to listen to ideas and innovation that come from ALL parts of the organisation.
My original research paper based its hypothesis upon an OD interdependency model, namely an 'OD PARACHUTE’ (Fawcett, 2001), focusing on links between IT, HRM & D, Research & Communication.
I am now writing up evidence of project and wish to include other examples of collaborative cross boundary work in public sector. I am interested in those where the OD factor has been a major player and how success has been measured.
Please mail me direct at: thepolexperience@hotmail.com
Clarity of objectives is key to achieve success !
Hello
For sure, CoPs are fantastic tools, with plenties of success stories. As any "living entities", they have a defined lifetime. When people begin repeating the same stuff during several meetings (real or virtual), efficiency and interest drop rapidly, even if repeated info is worthwhile. I remember also the article of Diane "How to make a CoP fly..." which was source of inspiration for our approach. From all these very useful tips, one is for me really key : the objectives must be clear, appealing and challenging.
With new clear objectives, you can revamp an old and languishing CoP, as well as boosting a fresh new community. Spending time on having a clear and shared commitment to the objectives is surely rewarding.
Regards
Xavier
Relevance for organizations
Hi Martin,
and thanks :-).
About the need for a CoP to be relevant for the organization(s) involved. That that was an insight I especially like. I've been working at that for a while, so maybe we can find another paper of your interest.
In the last KMSS at San Sebastian I presented a paper about (among other things) a CoP classification based on what type of utility (relevance) it has for individuals, and for organizations. The juxtaposition gives a quite useful classification.
The presentation is available here ( http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?ap=1&id=111040 ) and the more detailed and better explained paper is here ( http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?ap=1&id=116398 ). I would really appreciate your comments on the Macuarium Quadrant from your perspective. It is one big ingredient of my own in-progress book (there's a lot of us trying to finish projects of this type :-)).
Patricia, your unique knowledge of the comparative development of both types of in-company CoPs should be very interesting to read, especially not in German if available :-).
Best regards,
Miguel
Thanks, Patricia.
Thank you for your comment, which I find very interesting and insightful. From what I read from you, it seems that the experience of CoP implementation at Daimler-Chrysler combine both a bottom-up (US) and a top-down (D) approach, which I would be very interested to discuss with you some day (Is there any chance I could have your thesis when it is published, even in German?).
But doesn't this add to my point that CoPs need to create value both for its members and for the sponsoring organization in order to thrive?
Daimler and Chrysler
Just a short note to Martin: While talking about DaimlerChrysler and Tech Clubs, you are talking about two different things. I know that because I was in the Daimler team (with Etienne) that detected the Chrysler Tech Clubs in the PMI phase, and thereafter I worked two years in the project which set up the Tech Clubs in the Mercedes Benz Passenger Car Development, and I wrote my doctor thesis on that.
At Chrysler it happened as follows: In the late 80th Chrysler moved to “car-platforms” which are cross-functional, product based structures. This allowed them to reduce product-development cycle time and to reduce R&D costs. But the move to the platforms did not come without costs, and even worse, it caused new problems like the development of multiple versions of the same part with slight variations, uncoordinated relationships with suppliers and lessons learned that did not travel. The company had gained the advantage of product focus, but lost the ability to learn from it’s own experience. What was needed was a channel for communication across platforms. Former colleagues from functional areas started to meet informally. Managers recognised the value of these relationships, but rather than formalise theses groups into a new matrix structure, they decided to sanction and support these informal meetings. The Tech Clubs were born. In 1996 Jack came up with the idea of creating the EBoK, a Lotus Notes database that would capture the relevant knowledge that engineers needed to do their job. So, at Chrysler the Tech Clubs just emerged, because members recognised that there was a need to share.
In the German part of the company it was the other way round: TCs were set up with an huge effort from a project team. But they survived not because they were set up according to the wishes of management, but because TC members recognised a personal and an organisational value in their work. The personal (and perhaps more important) value was the offered chance to participate in the cross functional decision process, to get better connected with other platforms, to be better informed etc. Believe me, I was responsible for success measurement and I did it in a really system theory based way, trying to detect sense making constructions on the KM implementation process among TC members etc.
About relevance...
Miguel,
(<-Sorry for this enormous picture, which would tend to indicate that I have quite an ego... I've been trying to change it several times, but there's a bug somewhere in the upload function...)
This is an excellent article, which I will be ciculating inside my company for all people engaged in community building.
Just one extra thought regarding relevance. A CoP has to be relevant both for its members and for its sponsors, which is often assumed -wrongly for me- to be the same.
I belong to several CoPs because they help me get better at what I do. My company supports CoPs because they develop new capabilities to execute the strategy. Hence, a negotiation must take place between the community and the sponsor so that the community activities meet both expectations. Think about the Tech-clubs at Daimler-Chrysler. The members were not particularly interested in making their collective knowledge explicit, but the management was (I find these two viewpoints very often in my company). Thus, the management negotiated more support to the Tech-Clubs (through Larry Baumgart)in exchange for the joint writing by these communities of what became known as the EBOK (Engineering Book of Knowledge).
This is a reinforcing loop. By giving a mission to the CoP, the sponsor legitimizes ("brands") it and attracts new participation.
Think about what would happen to Etienne Wenger's CPSquare CoP if it were to be endorsed by, say, the Harvard Business School.
What would the KnowledgeBoard be if its sponsor, the EC, were not giving it a mission to fulfill in exchange for the EC logo?
Profit and recognition
Hi again,
Diane, IMHO the "expectation of profit" is indeed the reason for most users to become interested in participation in the first place.
It is remarkable, however, that in the latest run of polls on this matter we're doing at Macuarium (right now) we find that most of the facilitators and moderators are quite conscious that they are "putting in" at least as much as they are "getting out" of the CoP system, some say they are putting in much more than they get. They're volunteers, and the CoP system is getting too big, but it would seem to ask for further explanation for their motivation than just profit.
Jenny, about the recognition :-), yes, I agree calling anybody a "newbie" is not exactly motivating. I rather use something quite plainer ("user", "active user", and nothing more).
But we do give some perks: when someone becomes an "active user" with 200 messages, he/she gets extra space for storing private messages, access to see the profiles of the other users, and (since September) access to a hidden forum where we allow discussion of politics with no holds barred (elsewhere forbidden as a dangerous off-topic). It is having a curious effect: people participate more, and the atmosphere is happier.
Also, when someone reaches 1.500 messages, he/she can add a "title" to the user name and group. You can find people titling themselves "Freelance for hire", "Lord Henry Wotton", "Homo Speculator", "Doctor Zoidberg"... But no specially-designed title to allow them to look down on other users.
For the few people with over 5.000 messages, well... I usually try to recruit them as facilitators before they reach them :-), which allows them to moderate and edit a specific CoP forum, and entails access to the coordination forums.
Of course, perks and profit will vary with the character, goals and means of the CoP. Some of the mentioned may not be applicable elsewhere, and some better alternatives may be available to better-funded CoPs and companies... or to more ingenuous managers :-).
Best regards,
Miguel
Thoughts
Hi Miguel and all
I think recognition by ones peers and managers is very important, as this reinforces that their participation is relevant to that CoP and members are reaping benefits. I believe this is the best form of encouragement.
As far as placing ‘titles’ this can often have an adverse effect – the stigma of being labelled a ‘newbie’ (or any title, which indicates that a member has just taken the plunge to participate, is intimidating), after all they may have been a lurker for a period of time and now feel confident they have something relevant to write.
Rules of conduct/engagement should be easily found, but this does not guarantee that members actually read them, but as you say, they are very useful to refer to in times of need.
Benefit is the key
Hi Miguel, all,
I think one of the most important encouragement for participation is the profit that ones draws from this participation. As you mentionned in the questions you are asking to measure the relevance of the CoP: does the CoP help me to solve my daily business problems? How many success stories did I achieve using the CoP? What is my personal balance sheet between time spending using the CoP and time gaining thanks to the CoP? What do I learn while being member of this CoP? Can I avoid being member of this CoP, without risking to miss important information, what would be the impact on my business?
I think nobody is spending time on non-profitable activities. The benefits have to weigh heavier than the energy spent.
Best regards.
Participation
Hi Jenny,
agreed. What do you think of the proposed means for increasing participation (in the paper)? What are your ideas about the matter?
Best regards,
Miguel
Getting Participation
I agree passion is a driving force but most of all is getting members to participate - without participation there is no community
You've hit the nail
Hi Thomas,
Thanks. And you're absolutely right :-), "motivation" is just a pale euphemism.
It takes real passion about the subject (or about the CoP's viewpoint of the subject) to push for a failing CoP's renewal. Passion for the subject is a neccessary trait of facilitators and managers, more than excellency in it, because passion pushes them to do something about it.
But how do you engineer passion? Besides searching for (and drafting) the available passionate people, what can a manager do that will motivate that much?
Best regards,
Miguel
Where is the passion?
Hi Miguel - great article.
I agree on your points - and, to my experience one of the drivers behind CoPs is the passion. The passion the individual participants (should) have for the topic. The passion the members of the CoP have for developing the theme of the group.
Certainly, even with passion one should behave sensibly, however, this gives strength to overcome other problems, which is one of the major differences to other way of collaboration.
br, Thomas
KM at Mercedes Benz
Hi all,
since today, my doctor thesis that we talked about is available as a book (in German language only :-(). It is published by Monsenstein und Vannerdat, the full title is 'Erfolgsmessung der Einführung von Wissensmanagement. Eine Evaluationsstudie im Projekt "Knowledge Management" der Mercedes- Benz Pkw- Enktwicklung der DaimlerChrysler AG', ISBN- Nr. 3-937312-04-8. You can order it for 20,90 Euro via e-mail at vertrieb@mv-verlag.de.