Value and Risks of Informal Social Networks in the Process of Knowledge Innovation - Essay Example

? Value, Risks of Informal Social Networks in the Knowledge Innovation Process Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Value and Risks of Informal Social Networks in the Process of Knowledge Innovation 5 III. Conclusion 10 References 13 I. Introduction This paper makes a critical evaluation of the value, as well as the risks, associated with informal networks in the process of knowledge innovation. The focus is on key aspects of informal networks, namely cross-community, boundary-spanning activities and communities of practice. Social networks and communities of practice are often mentioned in the same breath in the academic literature, in that a common conception of communities of practice emphasizes the social aspect of the need of people having the same interests and the same concentrations of study, for instance, wanting to share what they know and to compare notes. Work-based communities of practice include associations based on a profession, and can also include worker guilds that are based on expertise on specific crafts, and even teams of software people working on the same sets of technologies and platforms. The value of such communities of practice cum informal social networks have come into the fore and have gained considerable recognition among all kinds of organizations (Lesser and Stork, 2001, pp. 831-833; Wenger, 2000). Disciplines focused on learning processes and the generation of new knowledge have likewise come to focus its attention on the role of communities of practice and the role that they play in those processes, in a large array of work and social contexts. Creative work, innovation, and high-value work outputs have likewise been linked in studies and discussions on communities of practice (Amin and Roberts, 2008, pp. 353-355). On the other hand, the literature also talks about informal social networks that span so-called work and expertise boundaries, where different communities of practice within an organization for instance, are effectively silos of knowledge generation that by the necessity of having shared organizational goals have likewise to cross boundaries, so to speak, and collaborate and share knowledge and inputs, as well as questions, across communities and boundaries. The literature notes too that while communication technologies and information technologies have facilitated this kind of cross-boundary social networking and collaboration, it is sometimes fraught with problems, as when differing groups jostle for power and politicize the process. These identified problems of groups fighting for control over the process of knowledge creation and innovation point to possible risks associated with the use of such informal social networks. The knowledge innovation processes can fail when different communities of practice fail to cooperate and trust each other, for instance (Hayes and Walsham, pp. 2-5). Meanwhile, because of the very substantial benefits from knowledge creation and innovation that are to be had from communities of practice, many are incentivized to look for ways to harness those benefits from various communities of practice that firms are exposed to. Including from contractor groups and other valuable third parties (Kaiser, n.d.) Meanwhile, the centrality of the concept of communities of practice to understanding knowledge generation and knowledge innovation processes is underscored by literature that attempts to refine definitions of key concepts tied to communities of practice, while trying to situate communities of practice within several contexts. Among these contexts is the personal context. This is the context or view from the inside looking out. This is the perspective of the individual learner and knowledge generator within the community. Also among these contexts or views is from the outside looking in. These are views that situate communities of practice within broader social and cultural contexts (Handley et al., 2006, pp. 641-645). Taking a step back, the value of communities of practice in innovations based on IT, and in knowledge innovation in general, has been confirmed in the literature. Among the findings in the academic literature is that communities of practice are both sources of innovation, as well as beneficiaries of the innovation and knowledge generation. Knowledge innovations serve as inputs for communities of practice to move forward with their work, and in pursuit of their own interests and goals (Hislop, 2003, pp. 163-165). II. Value and Risks of Informal Social Networks in the Process of Knowledge Innovation One can argue that in the present age the processes of knowledge sharing, knowledge generation, and knowledge innovation are in hyperdrive and snowballing at a very fast clip on the Internet, and in the context of communities of practice and social networks, literature exists that has come to look at online communities of all kinds as being de facto communities of practice, worthy of sustained academic and practical consideration (Wenger and Snyder, 2000; Jenkins, 2012). The results of a case study in 2008 showed that indeed, many online communities share the characteristics that are common with communities of practice elsewhere, in that the members are enthusiastic and highly knowledgeable in their fields of discussions and expertise, are willing to share what they know and to compare notes, and are often in pursuit of common goals and projects. These are also, presumably, venues for sustained knowledge innovation and creation, and are therefore relevant in this discussion (Zhang and Watts, 2008, pp. 55-57). The rest of the paper further explores the value and the risks associated with such communities of practice and related informal social networks in the process of knowledge innovation (Quintas, Lefrere and Jones, 1997; Sharratt and Usoro, 2003). The literature implies that communities of practice are spontaneously created, out of shared passions and interests, and are by their very nature informal and voluntary. They are powered mainly by the enthusiasm of its members, as well as by commonly held goals. This is true for instance when when the members are involved in communal projects. The currency in such informal social networks, as the literature notes, is knowledge, and innovation and creation. In such networks too, the value is in the continuous churn of the sharing of knowledge as inputs to further innovation and creation in a virtuous cycle. This makes such informal networks ripe for having substantial impact on the process of knowledge innovation. Indeed, as early as the early part of the new millennium, the literature has noted that the value of such informal networks, and in particular communities of practice, has been to be substantial. This is so in a number of real-world situations involving some very large institutions and firms. Case studies that prove the value of communities of practice include those involving banking institutions, in automobile manufacturing concerns, in government, and a slew of other private concerns, to name a few. The value observed is in terms of measurable increases in productivity and in performance in general. From these early examples, therefore, we are able to glean the value that such communities of practice brings to processes in knowledge innovation and in the bottom line performance of firms that make ultimate use of the knowledge (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). Work that took off from this initial work by Snyder and Wenger, on the other hand, went farther by empirically observing the dynamics of many communities of practice set up within IBM Global Services in a span of five years. Here the findings include that indeed, communities of practice of various shapes and sizes, personalities, and levels of evolution over the observation period were able to contribute significant value to the IBM organization as a whole. The value that these communities of practice were able to generate were described in terms of knowledge that was ultimately leveraged to meet client needs and improve work outcomes. For instance, some communities of practice, by their very dynamic, are able to attract and disseminate intellectual capital at a constant and rapid clip, and by being so is able to contribute largely and effectively to growing the intellectual capital and resources of the entire IBM organization (Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001, pp. 842-860). The literature also talks about the value of communities of practice in generating and distributing best practices throughout an organization. This value is seen from the point of view of communities of practice as focused informal social networks that have specific goals, and that harness the individual knowledge and expertise of the members. The value here is partly a function of the unique and determinate composition, structure, and reason for existence of communities of practice. This unique structure treads the middle ground between a totally informal structure that has no definite goal and common plan of action, and a rigid team that has very well-defined goals and objectives (Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000; Probst and Borzillo, 2008). In communities of practice, as they are differentiated from other types of groups of individuals in a larger organization, there is just the right amount of informality as well as structure to position it uniquely as a fount of knowledge creation and innovation. In this sense the value that communities of practice bring is in the positive effect they have on the entire process of knowledge creation and innovation. Communities of practice are best suited to generate best practices in their fields of interest, and to disseminate those best practices throughout a firm or organization (Zhang and Storck, 2001). The overwhelming evidence from the literature, starting at least from the time of Wenger and Snyder (2000), is that communities of practice as informal networks are a positive force in knowledge creation, innovation and sharing processes. This is partly due to the way knowledge processes among differing communities of practice and differing organizations even permeate one another. They contribute substantial value in ways that other types of groups are not able to do. In the age of the Internet, and in an age where collaboration, communication, and information technologies are powerful, ubiquitous, and cheap, there is an even greater push towards the use of communities of practice (Hayes and Walsham, pp. 2-5). This push is part of that natural evolution of communities of practice from individuals naturally gravitating towards one another to share knowledge and knowledge innovation, as well as to create new knowledge. Enabling technologies make the collaboration work in these communities easier to put into practice. Organizations in turn, seeing the value of these communities of practice, naturally want to leverage them and put them to best use in pursuit of larger organizational goals (Zhang and Storck, 2001; Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000). Probst and Borzillo (2008) further show that when communities of practice work, their impact on the knowledge creation, innovation and dissemination processes within those organizations are profound. They do this by way of examples of cases involving successes and failures in the creation and use of communities of practice in organizations from Daimler to Oracle, Siemens, the World Bank, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The work of communities of practice has led to substantial improvements in productivity, performance versus organizational goals, innovation, competitive fitness, and ability to thrive in the long run (Hayes and Walsham, pp. 2-5; Wenger and Snyder, 2000; Jenkins, 2012; Quintas, Lefrere and Jones, 1997). On the other hand, where communities of practice fail, the risks of making use of such communities become obvious. Those risks include organizations lagging behind competition and failing to meet crucial organizational goals. This is due to the general failure of firms at harnessing the value that communities of practice bring to the table. This is also sometimes a failure at properly managing those communities (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003; Probst and Borzillo, 2008). Moreover, as has been discussed earlier, making disparate groups and communities work together and share information are exercises that are fraught with risks and pitfalls. Those risks include the inability to generate trust among groups. This can lead to poor knowledge sharing and poor knowledge innovation. The problems that stem from this failure at generating trust can include differing groups jockeying for power and politicizing the sharing of knowledge to the detriment of all parties involved. In the endthe organizations to which the communities of practice belong suffer (Hislop, 2003, pp. 163-165; Zhang and Watts, 2008; Zhang and Storck, 2001). III. Conclusion The preceding critical evaluation yields a strong case for the profound value that informal social networks bring to the process of knowledge creation, innovation, and dissemination/sharing. This is especially true in communities of practice. This value generation by communities of practice in turn has profound positive impact on the organizations that leverage them. Organizations are able to use that value to pursue larger organizational goals. Communities of practice, by facilitating and attracting knowledge, and intellectual capital, serve as powerhouses that fuel the creative and innovative initiatives of an organization. In many organizations this can be the foundation of a defined, lasting, and sustainable competitive advantage. That this is so, has resulted in the production of a large and growing body of academic and trade literature investigating various aspects of communities of practice. This intensive research is done vis-a-vis harnessing the value that communities of practice brings to the process of knowledge innovation. Included in this research is the growing body of literature on best practices with regard to how to form and nurture communities of practice within organizations. to maximize the gains to be had from them (Hayes and Walsham, pp. 2-5; Wenger and Snyder, 2000; Jenkins, 2012; Quintas, Lefrere and Jones, 1997). That said, that value does not come without caveats. There are risks too, that are associated with the formation and use of communities of practice within organizations. These risks are especially relevant in scenarios involving different communities and groups, some external to an organization and some within. These scenarios come into play when these differing groups are required by circumstance and by shared goals to cooperate, share knowledge, and collaborate on knowledge creation, innovation, and dissemination. Those risks include the risk of communities of practice and of the entire organization failing to work together. When this happens they fail to help organizations meet crucial objectives. On the other hand, the potential value and benefits to be had from being able to successfully harness communities of practice are very large and profound indeed, that the motivation to make them work is very great. (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003; Probst and Borzillo, 2008). References Amin, A. and Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy (37). Retrieved from http://www.cvik.name/managing_knowledge/managing%20knowledge/knowing%20in%20action.pdf Gongla, P .and Rizzuto, CR (2001). Evolving communities of practice: IBM Global Services Experience. IBM Systems Journal 40 (4). Retrieved from http://old.disco.unimib.it/simone/gestcon/exp_comunities.pdf Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R. and Clark, T. (2006). Within and Beyond Communities of Practice: Making Sense of Learning Through Participation, Identity and Practice. Journal of Management Studies 43 (3). Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan030552.pdf Hayes, N. and Walsham, G. (1999). Safe Enclaves, Political Enclaves and Knowledge Working. First International Critical Management Studies Conference. Retrieved from http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/1999/documents/Information%20Knowledge/polit.pdf Hislop, D. (2003). The Complex Relations Between Communities of Practice and the Implementation of Technological Innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management 7 (2). Retrieved from http://redbibliotecariaupr.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/the-complex-relations-between-communities-of-pratice-and-the-implementation-of-technological-innovations1.pdf Jenkins, M. (2012). The Shifting Geography of Competitive Advantage: Clusters, Networks and Firms. Journal of Economic Geography 10 (4). Retrieved from https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/7608/1/Shifting_Geography_of_Competitive_Advantage.pdf Kaiser, S. (n.d.). Strategies for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries: The Utilization of Highly Skilled Contractors. Ingolstadt School of Management/Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt. Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc5/papers/f-1_kaiser.pdf. Lesser, EL and Stork, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal 40 (4). Retrieved from http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/education/cop_and_organizational_performance.pdf. Probst, G. and Borzillo, S. (2008). Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail. European Management Journal 26. Retrieved from http://herbsleb.org/SCALEpapers/probst-why-2008.pdf Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge Management: A Strategic Agenda. Long Range Planning 30 (3). Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222487231_Knowledge_management_A_strategic_agenda/file/32bfe511cf2d44b84c.pdf Sawhney, M. and Prandelli, E. (2000). Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets. California Management Review 42 (4). Retrieved from http://www.calt.insead.fr/papers/communities-creation.pdf Sharratt, M. and Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding Knowledge-Sharing in Online Communities of Practice. University of Paisley/Academic Conferences Limited. Retrieved from http://www.ejkm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=32 Wenger, E. and Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://itu.dk/people/petermeldgaard/B12/lektion%207/Communities%20of%20Practice_The%20Organizational%20Frontier.pdf Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization. Retrieved from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/fineman/Reading%20On/Chapter%2010b%20-%20Wenger.pdf Zhang, W. and Storck, J. (2001). Peripheral Members in Online Communities. AMCIS. Retrieved from http://ifipwg213.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/zhang.pdf Zhang, W. and Watts, S. (2008). Online communities as communities of practice: a case study. Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (4). Retrieved from http://lpis.csd.auth.gr/mtpx/km/material/jkm-12-4b.pdf Read More