How Social Process shapes Communities of Practice and its usefulness in Knowledge Management - Essay Example

With reference to Communities of Practice critically assess the contribution of social processes to the creation, sharing and diffusion of knowledge within an organization Introduction Traditionally organizations have largely drawn on information technology to share knowledge. Databases have been prepared to retain information and promote learning. However, technology has its limitations in meeting the knowledge needs of organizations. Very often the best ideas and solutions originate when dynamic interactions take place among people, who are actually involved in the creation and use of knowledge. These dynamic interactions are facilitated by social processes, which allow for thought exchange and increase awareness and knowledge, ultimately benefiting the organization that these participants work for. Organizations have come to recognize the value of social interactions among its employees and with those in the industry to generate new product ideas, solve customer problems and propel strategic initiatives. Social processes can deliberately or inadvertently serve as the vehicles for diffusion of knowledge and create communities of like-minded people, with common professional interests. Referred to as Communities of Practice (CoP), they are usually self-organising in nature. Participants in such communities get together to share ideas, experiences and thoughts to further their learning on the subject of interest. Wenger defines CoP as "groups of people who share information, insight, experience, and tools about an area of common interest". How Social Process shapes Communities of Practice and its usefulness in Knowledge Management CoPs may arise out of social interactions, however they are always work related. Colleagues in an organization develop relationships that are not purely formal, as they problem solve together, meet during lunch breaks and discover new techniques and strategies through collaboration on common tasks. Wenger's definition of CoP coalesces three factors integral to a CoP. Firstly that it is a "joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members". Secondly that it functions by ensuring "mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity" and thirdly its ability to produce "the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time". Social interactions foster relationships among employees, and the resulting CoPs surpass barriers arising even when employees separate from the organization. Existing employees still draw on their interaction with such colleagues through the CoP channel to further their knowledge and bring it back to the organization. Similarly by bringing together employees working on cross-functional teams, who rarely interact otherwise, can bring valuable insight to the business. It is also believed that spontaneous communities hold more value in bringing knowledge than those that are deliberately organized. Their voluntary nature preserves participants' commitment to the subject of interest. The social dimensions by which such communities come into existence can bring hidden knowledge to the forefront. People participate in these communities based on their own interest, time and resources. They value their participation in such vibrant groups that help forward their own professional competencies and in turn that of the organization. The subjects that such communities focus on keeps changing as the requirements of its participating members change. A very large portion of an organization's knowledge exists in the minds of its employees. As a result it does not always find place in manuals and guides. This knowledge can play a pivotal role in the company's growth and organizations can derive value from sustaining Communities of Practice for sharing knowledge and boosting talent. It offers employees an opportunity to imbibe knowledge faster, since CoPs collaborative nature facilitates easy and quick knowledge transfer. In this sense they are also a cheap and practical resource for knowledge management compared to the technical requirements and complexities associated with Information Technology. CoPs help participants who are the key users of information to transfer feedback, tips, and best practices and thus help refine and retain knowledge. Story Telling versus ICT For communities to exist and remain valuable, participants need a trusted environment for open exchange of ideas and information. Story telling serves as an effective technique which paves the way for a comfortable and fertile environment for open discussion. It helps in nurturing CoPs by permitting dynamic intellectual exchange. It encourages participants to stay honest and nips inhibitions of those who know less. Structured story telling helps build an environment of mutual respect. The emotional dimension of story telling is what drives participants' enthusiasm and commitment. For CoPs to be useful and valuable, passion for the subject is essential. Story telling can help kindle this passion. Knowledge Management through the CoP channel thrives only when there is passion and commitment among its members towards common goals. This poses a challenge to the management of the company who are usually of the opinion that business is a matter of the mind and not emotion. But very often managers are forced to change their outlook. Aptly noted by Denning, "the lesson repeatedly emerges from case studies and benchmarking of knowledge sharing programsfor reasons of sheer efficiency and effectiveness - the modern workplace is finding it necessary to provide time and space for both the head and the heart. Storytelling can be instrument handle and channel the unaccustomed emotion." The other characteristic which story telling imparts to CoPs is that of collaboration. It wipes out hierarchies and brings the participants on level platform, facilitating healthy discussions and candid environment. The use of ICT in CoPs is also not uncommon. When ICT is used as a channel for interaction, the CoP is called a virtual CoP. Compared to story telling, ICT has its limitations. Since the value of face-to-face interaction in nurturing CoP is immense, ICT also uses video conferencing, newsgroups, website, intranet etc. to bring the CoP participants together. It does play a successful role in bringing together CoPs, when participants are geographically spread out or schedules get tough to manage. However compared with story telling, ICT is not as effective. "Building the trust and the sense of belonging necessary for open exchange and sharing, may be much more difficult through computer-mediated interactions" (cited by Dub, Bourhis & Ral Jacob). Use of ICT demands that participants are technology savvy, else too much time is spent in getting comfortable with the tool itself. It may entail continuous technical support. Besides the distance can inhibit the bonding that participants feel in a CoP. In comparison, strory-telling technique is more universal, social and easily acceptable. Managing CoP In order to manage CoPs in an optimal manner, it is important to gain an insight into how they are formed and what sustains them. CoPs are participant motivated and come into being by transcending organizational hierarchies and department boundaries. They are formed in various ways to serve the learning needs of the participants. This is discussed in greater detail below. 1. CoPs are formed within businesses, as employees discuss frequent problems. For example as pointed by Wenger, "claims processors within an office form communities of practice to deal with the constant flow of information they need to process. By participating in such a communal memory, they can do the job without having to remember everything themselves". 2. CoPs can also arise by participation of members from cross-functional teams. This can lend strategic perspective on issues. The coming together of peers in such a way can create a synergy that can bring innovation to meet organizational challenges. 3. Communities can also develop across organizations, for eg. medical specialists getting together to keep abreast of the latest development in their fields. Thus boundaries in a CoP are fluid, with participation free and accessible to anyone interested and willing to contribute. In this sense they differ from organization's functional units or teams, which are deliberately created to trouble shoot. It is essentially the interest of the participants that keeps a CoP going. Unlike teams, it is not dissolved once its agenda is met. CoPs live longer than projects that they deal with. Thus, by their very nature CoPs are often voluntary and therefore management interference can jeopardize their life. However, recognition of CoPs for promoting organization's intellect makes it too important for management to stay away from involvement. Its value to the organization creates a need for it to structure CoPs. This is a tricky situation and requires a very delicate balance. For even though CoPs are easy to cultivate, excessive management interference or micro management, can beat its purpose and rob it of its value. Its self-organizing and spontaneous attributes can be easily threatened by over systematization and can dissipate participants' commitment and passion, who may feel forced into such communities. As pointed by Wenger, "just because communities of practice arise naturally does not mean that organizations can't do anything to influence their development". To retain and refine knowledge, organizations need to get an insight into the processes, which create CoPs. Once there is a grip on what factors create and nurture CoPs, managing them intelligently becomes easier. While some CoPs thrive best when left to their own course, others may need infrastructure and organizational support, so that their energy does not diminish. Some attention and support to the development and growth of CoP for organizational learning is more often than not, a worthwhile effort. It is also crucial that organizations do nothing that will impede the vitality of CoPs. For example organization's operational processes or infrastructure set up, could either give impetus to a CoPs sustenance or by being too bureaucratic or inadequate in resource requirements, could dwindle its drive. Managing CoPs is best achieved by nurturing and supporting them rather than treating them like teams responsible to achieve specific agenda. Leadership and involvement of experts can inspire participants and legitimize CoPs, helping them to attain their true potential. For example, organizations can benefit by involving those who organize day-to-day activities and those who collate information in order to document practices in CoPs, so that learning is retained and facilitated in the organization. Since social and interpersonal aspect is also crucial for CoPs, involvement of staff that administers social affairs of the organization can make sharing of thoughts easy and uninhibited. The involvement of such managers and leaders is required from inside the CoPs rather than the outside to build a trusted environment. A case in point is the example given by McDermott, "Allied Signal supports learning communities by giving staff time to attend community meetings, funding community events, creating community bulletins, and developing a directory of employee skills." The way management tackles this is by actually budgeting resources and employee hours towards community participation. Communities have one dedicated leader and the core members' participation in CoP is tied to their performance appraisal. The percentage of time spent by core members on community activities is structured in a way that it is not deemed as negligence of their day-to-day responsibilities. A specific percentage of core member's time is allocated towards community activities. There is recognition of the fact that such communities are critical to the success of organizational goals, overall reduction of time and cost, and quality enhancement. Hence CoPs are structured for the maximum benefit of the organization. Community coordinators regularly keep themselves abreast on what communities are working on and the learning that is culminating as a result of this effort. Community coordinators facilitate introduction among members of the community and develop the bonding necessary for an open environment. It is also important to point out that while social relationships may give rise to CoPs, CoPs are not about relationships, they are about the opportunity to learn and enhance know how. So while CoPs may arise due to the inner motivations of the participants they thrive when their intellectual gains meet organizational requirements. The answer lies in supporting such communities with resources and at the same time not overdoing management involvement. Works Cited Denning, S. "Launching & nurturing communities through storytelling." Steve Denning.2004.14 January 2006http://www.stevedenning.com/storytelling_communities.html Dub,L., Bourhis, A. & Jacob,R. "The Impact of Structural Characteristics on the Launching of Intentionally Formed Virtual Communities of Practice." 2003. Gresi.hec.ca HEC Montreal.15 January 2006 McDermott, R. "Knowing in Community:10 Critical Success Factors in Building Communities of Practice." Community Intelligence Labs .28 February 2000. 15 January 2006 Wenger, E. "Communities of Practice Learning as a Social System". Systems Thinker. June (1998). 14 January 2005.< http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml> Read More