Revisiting Communities of Practice: from fishermen guilds to the global village
11-May-06
After a recent debate at com-prac's about what is a CoP and what isn't, I ended up trying to find the root of the definition problem. What is a CoP?
IMHO we've been running with a model that grew out of a very specific situation that is no longer predominant. If we want a model that truly reflects modern CoP behaviour, we need to take into account a number of changes that have affected CoPs - the same ones that have propelled them to their current number and role. Those changes affect the roles of familiar parts of the model, and highlight the emergence of new elements like the "conversational space" and privately-owned resources.
Details
- Author:
- Miguel Cornejo
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 11-May-06
- Categories:
- Communities and Collaboration, CoPs
This article has been read 6342 times.
Tools
Member comments (2)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
Opening this conversation space
Dear Miguel,
sorry for beening late, I was carrying your paper around for some weeks, now finally found the time to read it...So here are my comments:
I like the term 'conversational space. My explaination so far was that the so called online CoPs (like KB) are usually broad networks and several core CoPs/ sub spaces. The broader network relies on weak ties between network members, the smaller ones show strong ties.
I'm not sure whether employees of big companies use the chance of solving their business- related learning needs outside the company, because if they do they would have to translate what they have learned into the companies' language what is rather difficult - I guess there are not many people who would take over that type of extra work (althought I would love to see a lot of them).
I feel that the point about culture, nettiquette/ behaavorial patterns etc. is very valid, thanks for that.
I'm not sure that a singel CoP (understood as sub space) can span more than one domain - it would not attract core members if it was that open, it could not serve the very specific learning needs of its core members.
Finally, I'm not sure whether you have seen our paper from last year that is explicitly on management differences (http://www.knowledgeboard.com/lib/3102) - would be interesting to talk about that.
Now I'm going to read the second part of your paper :-)
Thanks a lot for this exciting paper, all the best: Patricia
Thanks
Hi Patricia,
glad to read you, and thanks for the comments :-). I was rather surprised that so many downloads and views in the KB were generating less comments here than outside.
Let's see if the "conversational space" term gets serious traction; I feel it will help to explain a lot of things :-).
About some of the interesting issues you raise:
- Employees solving their knowledge needs by participating in outside CoPs. It's an observable reality in most IT-based services companies (for instance), and even more among their customers. Really nowadays no company has all the required skills to solve all questions, so it's simply neccessary to find a channel for consulting among practitioners. Observed instances include SAP and .Net developers finding peer CoPs, KB's sister board for accountants, and quite a long list of initiatives.
I think the real issue is whether those professionals then go on to translate what they learned into any knowledge object available to their coworkers. They rarely do.
- Domain-spanning. In the model, a CoP is not a "subspace" but rather a "subculture" using a set of tools :-). That culture and tools can be used for more things than one. Witness the (member-overlapping but goal-divergent) SIGs in the early KB.
Hope you're enjoying the second part... the third should arrive any time now :-).
Looking forward to your comments, best regards,
Miguel