On

Communities of Practice (COP)

 Table of Content

Serial Topic: Page No:

no:
1. Introduction 3

2. Communities of Practices 4

3. Communities of practice and knowledge 5

management

I. Importance of teamwork for Knowledge 5

Management

II. Sharing ideas to the success of KM 7

III. Connection of COP to Knowledge Management 8

IV. How characteristics of COP help to bring success to KM 9

practices

4. Conclusion 11

5. References 12

2|Page
 Introduction

Communities of practice are everywhere. We all belong to a number of them–at work, at

university, at home, in our hobbies. Some have a name, some don't. We are core members of
some and we belong to others more peripherally. We may be a member of a band, or we may just
come to rehearsals to hang around with the group. We may lead a group of consultants who
specialize in telecommunication strategies, or we may just stay in touch to keep informed about
developments in the field. Or we may have just joined a community and are still trying to find
our place in it. Whatever forms our participation takes, most of us are familiar with the
experience of belonging to a community of practice.

Members of a community are informally bound by what they do together–from engaging in

lunchtime discussions to solving difficult problems–and by what they have learned through their
mutual engagement in these activities. A community of practice is thus different from a
community of interest or a geographical community, neither of which implies a shared practice.

Much of what people do in organizations occurs in the context of Communities of Practice. There
is where best practices and innovations first emerge and where the solutions to shared problems
are first identified. For this reason, many companies are determined to encourage, promote, and
support COPs, especially in areas, processes and functions where an edge in performance
provides a competitive advantage (whether it be financial, operational or in the eyes of the
customer).

It takes time for COPs to emerge, to flourish and to become productive. More important, they
can't be mandated or managed in a heavy-handed way. COPs, then, are an investment in the
organization's future, not a quick fix to be applied for the sake of short-term gain. Most important
many will exist whether or not management chooses to encourage and support them; they are a
natural part of organizational life. And that means they require a minimal investment on the part
of the organization.

3|Page
 Communities of practice (COP)

A community of practice (COP) is, according to cognitive anthropologists Jean Lave and Etienne
Wenger, a group of people who share an interest, a craft, and/or a profession. The group can
evolve naturally because of the members' common interest in a particular domain or area, or it
can be created specifically with the goal of gaining knowledge related to their field. It is through
the process of sharing information and experiences with the group that the members learn from
each other, and have an opportunity to develop themselves personally and professionally (Lave
& Wenger 1991). COPs can exist online, such as within discussion boards and newsgroups, or in
real life, such as in a lunchroom at work, in a field setting, on a factory floor, or elsewhere in the
environment.

While Lave and Wenger coined the term in the 1990s, this type of learning practice has existed
for as long as people have been learning and sharing their experiences through storytelling. This
approach views learning as an act of membership in a “community of practice.” The theory seeks
to understand both the structure of communities and how learning occurs in them.

Groups whose members regularly engage in sharing and learning, based on common interests—
can improve organizational performance. Although many authors assert that communities of
practice create organizational value, there has been relatively little systematic study of the
linkage between community outcomes and the underlying social mechanisms that are at work.
To build an understanding of how communities of practice create organizational value, we
suggest thinking of a community as an engine for the development of social capital. We argue
that the social capital resident in communities of practice leads to behavioral changes, which in
turn positively influence business performance. We identify four specific performance outcomes
associated with the communities of practice we studied and link these outcomes to the basic
dimensions of social capital. These dimensions include connections among practitioners who
may or may not be co-located; relationships that build a sense of trust and mutual obligation, and
a common language and context that can be shared by community members. Our conclusions are
based on a study of seven organizations where communities of practice are acknowledged to be
creating value.

4|Page
 Communities of practice and
Knowledge management

Wasko and Faraj (2000) describe three kinds of knowledge: "knowledge as object", "knowledge
embedded within individuals", and "knowledge embedded in a community". Communities of
Practice have become associated with finding, sharing, transferring, and archiving knowledge, as
well as making explicit "expertise", or tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is considered to be
those valuable context-based experiences that cannot easily be captured, codified and stored
(Davenport & Prusak 2000), also (Hildreth & Kimble 2002).

Because knowledge management is seen "primarily as a problem of capturing, organizing, and

retrieving information, evoking notions of databases, documents, query languages, and data
mining" (Thomas, Kellogg & Erickson 2001), the community of practice, collectively and
individually, is considered a rich potential source of helpful information in the form of actual
experiences; in other words, best practices.

Thus, for knowledge management, a community of practice is one source of content and context
that if codified, documented and archived can be accessed for later use.

Importance of teamwork for Knowledge Management:

What works in KM is reaching its goals is not an individual, but properly integrated teamwork.
The main reason is that considering the vastness and the very nature of the work that KM
department engages in, it is not possible for any one individual to even think of taking the entire
load upon his own shoulders.

5|Page
Teamwork can be simply defined, "as a state of unity achieved within a group of people working
for a specific economic benefit." The phenomenon of teamwork in business is basically used to
define the coordination and cooperation, between the members of a partnership that form a
business or a joint venture or a private limited company. To succeed at the task in hand everyone
involved needs to combine their efforts. If everyone does their job well, then it increases what
the team can accomplish. This teamwork has to be recognized by everyone and know that great
things can happen if individuals master the fundamentals and work together as one unit.
Everyone has their own unique role, but each person's individual role must be recognized and
appreciated. Teamwork is something that must be a high priority and given constant attention.

We should just remember T.E.A.M. - Together Everyone Achieves More!

There are numerous advantages of teamwork in knowledge management. Some of the genuine
advantages of teamwork have been discussed below. The following advantages of teamwork are
not only applicable for KM department but they can also be noticed in departments that function
with the help of united efforts.

United Effort
Teamwork in any business ensures that the task at hand is executed with the help of a united
effort. The significance of the united effort is that the business organization that is concerned,
functions like a single person, thereby enhancing the quality of the operations.

Division of Work
Teamwork ensures that there is an equal and fair distribution of work within the organization. A
fair work distribution ensures that every person or every working unit, executes any task at hand,
with the best possible efficiency.

Reduction of Risk
When the task at hand is executed with the maximum possible efficiency, there is a reduction in
risk. The best advantage of teamwork in business is that the burden of failure is borne by all the
members of the team and it does not fall on the shoulders of just one person.

Specialization in Work
Another very good advantage of teamwork in business is that a person is able to specialize in one
specific field. That is, he can optimize the quality of the work that he does, and can also work
with the maximum possible efficiency. This ensures a high quality output from all individuals
and the whole team.

Subordination of Personal Interest to Organizational Interest

One of the biggest advantages of teamwork is that personal interest is subordinate to
organizational interest. This ensures that all the team members put in the maximum possible
efforts into their work, thereby ensuring a high quality and timely output.

6|Page
Timely Completion
Teamwork is one of the best ways to ensure the timely completion of any work, with the
maximum possible efficiency. This ensures that the clients of the company are bound to come
back to your organization with a new project or contract.

High Quality Output

Teamwork, by default, ensures high quality output that makes the client happy. It also reflects
the sincerity of the team members.

Goodwill and Reputation

Teamwork, also, increases the goodwill and reputation of a business. The goodwill, in fact, is a
tangible asset of any business that plays a highly instrumental role in bringing in more customers
and public trust.

Unification of Merits
The indirect advantage of an effective teamwork, is that there is unification of the merits of the
team members, and on the whole, the business organization, as a team, does not depict any
demerit.

Sharing ideas to the success of KM:

Sharing of ideas, views, knowledge etc. in organization greatly influence on the success of
knowledge management in an organization. Due to globalization of economy, rapid growth in
information technology, increase in knowledge based work and competition pressure the concept
of knowledge management has gained momentum in recent years. Knowledge sharing is a
systematic process for creating, acquiring, synthesizing, learning, sharing and using knowledge
and experience to achieve organizational goal. This knowledge can be inside the employees'
minds or stored in paper form in filing cabinets and/or stored in electronic form. As a concept,
knowledge sharing is very attractive and many business organizations would prefer to be
associated with it. But knowledge sharing implementation is not easy. There are many barriers in
knowledge sharing implementations such as organization culture, lack of understanding the
power of knowledge management, fear of IT, immaturity of industry, etc. Above all knowledge
management implementation requires sound strategy. For this it is important to make knowledge
sharing a distributive system rather than a centralized system. It also requires a platform where
the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge can take place.

There is no universal definition of knowledge management. Knowledge management means

different things to different people, Microsoft explains it as a discipline that treats intellectual
capital as managed assets. The primary "tools" applied in the practice of knowledge management
is (a) Organizational Dynamics (b) Process Engineering and (c) Technology.

7|Page
An effective idea sharing program should help a company do one or more of the following:

1. Foster innovation by encouraging the free flow of ideas.

2. Help in understanding markets and customers.
3. Development of product and services.
4. Development of vision and strategies.
5. Building competencies.
6. Improve customer service by streamlining response time.
7. Boost revenues by getting products and services to market faster.
8. Enhance employee retention rates by recognizing the value of employee's knowledge     and
rewarding them for it.
9. Streamline operations and reduce costs by eliminating redundant or unnecessary processes.

Connection of COP to Knowledge Management:

Knowledge management is the concept of storing and retrieving information that can be shared
with individuals to provide assistance, increase skill level or improve work performance.
Although software and tools are often used to “manage” knowledge, a lack of human interaction
results in a lack of the richness that humans can provide through subjectivity. Knowledge
management is practiced everywhere that individuals, in their personal and work lives, seek
advice and guidance from experts and historical information, knowledge and experiences, and
skill development tools are shared.

Key characteristics of knowledge management are a willingness to share knowledge and

experience with others or a system whereby knowledge can be made accessible to all. Also key
is a willingness to use personal knowledge and skills to enhance organizational knowledge and
skills. In organizations that support knowledge management, such knowledge is used to make

8|Page
decisions and enhance strategic planning and thinking. Most importantly, knowledge
management used correctly is cyclical and feeds into itself. Individuals gather information they
need to perform well in their jobs, through new knowledge they create value and learn from what
they create, and finally, this newfound knowledge is placed back into the system when they share
it with others.

The relationship between communities of practice and knowledge management is one of

interconnectedness. Communities of practice cannot exist without knowledge management. By
definition, a community of practice is a tool through which knowledge management takes place.
It is a formal means of sharing guidance and knowledge, as well as practical application and
experience.

In looking at successful knowledge management, whereby the knowledge is shared, given value
and meaning through its relation to a context, and then placed back into the system when shared
with others, the community of practice is a perfect tool for both sharing the knowledge and
returning it into the organizational system through the sharing of the knowledge with others.

How characteristics of COP help to bring success to KM practices:

The characteristics of cop can be very much helpful to bring success to knowledge management
practices within the organization. The characteristics of such communities of practice vary. Some have
names, many do not.  Some communities of practice are quite formal in organization; others are very
fluid and informal. However, members are brought together by joining in common activities and by
'what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities' (Wenger 1998). In this
respect, a community of practice is different from a community of interest or a geographical community
in that it involves a shared practice.

The characteristics of communities of practice

According to Etienne Wenger, three elements are crucial in distinguishing a community of

practice from other groups and communities:

9|Page
1. The domain:

A community of practice is not merely a club of friends or a network of connections between

people. It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Membership therefore
implies a commitment to the domain, and therefore a shared competence that distinguishes
members from other people. (You could belong to the same network as someone and never
know it.) The domain is not necessarily something recognized as “expertise” outside the
community. A youth gang may have developed all sorts of ways of dealing with their
domain: surviving on the street and maintaining some kind of identity they can live with.
They value their collective competence and learn from each other, even though few people
outside the group may value or even recognize their expertise.

2. The community:

In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions,
help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn
from each other. A website in itself is not a community of practice. Having the same job or
the same title does not make for a community of practice unless members interact and learn
together. The claims processors in a large insurance company or students in American high
schools may have much in common, yet unless they interact and learn together, they do not
form a community of practice. But members of a community of practice do not necessarily
work together on a daily basis. The Impressionists, for instance, used to meet in cafes and
studios to discuss the style of painting they were inventing together. These interactions were
essential to making them a community of practice even though they often painted alone.

3. The practice:

A community of practice is not merely a community of interest--people who like certain

kinds of movies, for instance. Members of a community of practice are practitioners. They
develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing
recurring problems—in short a shared practice. This takes time and sustained interaction. A
good conversation with a stranger on an airplane may give you all sorts of interesting
insights, but it does not in itself make for a community of practice. The development of a
shared practice may be more or less self-conscious. The “windshield wipers” engineers at an
auto manufacturer make a concerted effort to collect and document the tricks and lessons
they have learned into a knowledge base. By contrast, nurses who meet regularly for lunch in
a hospital cafeteria may not realize that their lunch discussions are one of their main sources
of knowledge about how to care for patients. Still, in the course of all these conversations,
they have developed a set of stories and cases that have become a shared repertoire for their
practice.

10 | P a g e
 Conclusion:

Communities of practice have been around for as long as human beings have learned together. At
home, at work, at school, in our hobbies, we all belong to communities of practice, a number of
them usually. In some we are core members. In many we are merely peripheral. And we travel
through numerous communities over the course of our lives.

In fact, communities of practice are everywhere. They are a familiar experience, so familiar
perhaps that it often escapes our attention. Yet when it is given a name and brought into focus, it
becomes a perspective that can help us understand our world better. In particular, it allows us to
see past more obvious formal structures such as organizations, classrooms, or nations, and
perceive the structures defined by engagement in practice and the informal learning that comes
with it.

Social scientists have used versions of the concept of community of practice for a variety of
analytical purposes, but the origin and primary use of the concept has been in learning theory.
Anthropologist Jean Lave and I coined the term while studying apprenticeship as a learning
model. People usually think of apprenticeship as a relationship between a student and a master,
but studies of apprenticeship reveal a more complex set of social relationships through which
learning takes place mostly with journeymen and more advanced apprentices. The term
community of practice was coined to refer to the community that acts as a living curriculum for
the apprentice. Once the concept was articulated, we started to see these communities
everywhere, even when no formal apprenticeship system existed. And of course, learning in a
community of practice is not limited to novices. The practice of a community is dynamic and
involves learning on the part of everyone.

The concept of community of practice has found a number of practical applications in business,
organizational design, government, education, professional associations, development projects,
and civic life. The concept of community of practice is influencing theory and practice in many
domains. From humble beginnings in apprenticeship studies, the concept was grabbed by
businesses interested in knowledge management and has progressively found its way into other
sectors. It has now become the foundation of a perspective on knowing and learning that informs
efforts to create learning systems in various sectors and at various levels of scale, from local
communities, to single organizations, partnerships, cities, regions, and the entire world.

11 | P a g e
 References:

Articles & Papers:

1. Wenger E. and Snyder W.

“Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier.”
Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb 2000).

2. “Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of

Working, Learning and Innovation.”
Organization Science (February 1991).
Available on the web at: http://www.uio.no/~oleg/newsletter/practice.html.

4. Brown J. S. and Gray E.S.

“The People Are the Company.”
Fast Company (November 1995).
Available on the web at: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/people.html.

5. Stamps D.
“Communities of Practice, Learning is Social. Training is Irrelevant?”
Training Magazine (February 1997).
Available on the web at: http://www.co-i-l/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/learnsoc.shtml.

6. Sharp J.
“Communities of Practice: A Review of the Literature. (March 1997).
Available on the web at: http://www.tfriend.com/cop-lit.htm.

Book:

Wenger E.
Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning and Identity.
Cambridge University Press (1998).

Web Sites:

1. http://www.co-I-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/

2. http://www.brint.com

12 | P a g e