aBstRaCt
Communities of Practice (CoP) are places which
provide a sound basis for organizational learn-ing, enabling knowledge creation and acquisi-tion, thereby improving
organizational perfor-mance, leveraging inno-vation and consequently increasing competitive-ness. Virtual Communities
A. Correia
IAPMEI – Instituto de Apoio ás Pequenas e Médias Empresas e à Inovação, I. P, and ISEGI Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
A. Mesquita
ISCAP / IPP, S. Mamede Infesta, and Algoritmi Centre, Group of Information Systems (Universidade do Minho), Portugal Corresponding author: sarmento@iscap.ipp.pt, +351 22 9050008
A. Paulos
ISEG – Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão, Lisboa, Portugal
iNNovatioN through
virtual CommuNities
oF PraCtiCe: motivatioN
aND CoNstraiNts iN the
kNowleDge-CreatioN
ProCess
iNNovatioN Par les CommuNautés De Pratique
virtuelles : motivatioNs et CoNtraiNtes DaNs le
ProCess De CréatioN De CoNNaissaNCe
iNNovaCióN Por las ComuNiDaDes De PráCtiCas
virtuales: motivaCioNes y restriCCioNes eN el
ProCeso De CreaCióN Del CoNoCimieNto
of Practice (VCoP) can perform a central role in promoting commu-nication and collabora-tion between members who are dispersed in both time and space. The ongo-ing case study, described
here, aims to identify both the motivations and the constraints that members of an organization experi-ence when taking part in the knowledge creating and sharing processes of the VCoP to which they
belong. Based on a litera-ture review, we have iden-tified several factors that influence such processes; they are used to analyze the results of interviews carried out in this study of three multinationals.
Résumé
Les Communautés de Pratique (CoP) sont des endroits qui proposent une base solide pour l’ap-prentissage organisation-nel, permettant la création et l’acquisition de connais-sance, développant ainsi la performance organisa-tionnelle, favorisant l’in-novation et augmentant de ce fait la compétitivité. Les
Communautés de Prati-que virtuelles (VCoP) peu-vent jouer un rôle central dans le développement de la communication et de la collaboration entre les membres qui sont dis-persés dans l’espace et dans le temps. L’étude de cas en cours, décrite ici, vise à identifier les moti-vations et les contraintes que les membres d’une organisation connaissent quand ils prennent part
aux processus de création et de partage de connais-sance dans la VCoP à laquelle ils appartiennent. En nous basant sur une revue de littérature, nous avons identifié plusieurs facteurs qui influencent de tels processus ; ils sont utilisés pour analyser les résultats des interviews réalisés dans cette étude de trois multinationales.
Resumen
Las Comunidades de Práctica (CoP) son luga-res que proponen una base sólida para el apren-dizaje organizacional, per-mitiendo la creación y la adquisición del cono-cimiento, y por consi-guiente, desarrollando la eficacia, favoreciendo la innovación y consecuen-temente desarrollando la
competitividad. Las comu-nidades de práctica virtua-les (VCoP) pueden tener un papel central en el desa-rrollo de la comunicación y en la colaboración entre los miembros que están repartidos en el espacio y en el tiempo. El estudio de caso que se describe aquí, tiene como objeto iden-tificar las motivaciones y las restricciones que los miembros de una orga-nización conocen cuando
participan en los proce-sos de creación y compar-ten el conocimiento en la VCoP a la cual pertenecen. Basándonos en un análisis de la bibliografía, hemos identificado varios facto-res que influencian este proceso; estos factores son utilizados para anali-zar los resultados de las entrevistas realizadas en el marco de este estudio de tres multinacionales. Keywords: Virtual Communities of Practice, knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, innovation in organizations.
mots clés : Communautés de Pratique Virtuelles, création de connaissance, transfert de connaissance, innovation dans les organisations.
palabras clave: Comunidades de Práctica Virtuales, creación del conocimiento, trans-ferencia del conocimiento, innovación en las organizaciones.
intRoduCtion
With accelerated market volatility, faster response times and increased global-ization, business environments are going through a major transformation and firms have intensified their search for strategies which can give them compet-itive advantage. This requires that companies continuously differentiate their products: that is, firms must constantly innovate. Innovation consists of new ideas that have been transformed or implemented as products, processes or services, generating value for the firm (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 309).
With such a demand for new ideas, it is often the case that not one individ-ual can satisfy this. often, individindivid-uals, when performing knowledge intensive tasks or faced with new problems, rely on informal relationships and engage in interactions to reduce uncertainty, generate ideas and create and use new knowledge. These informally established groups of self-organized individu-als, working on similar problems, help each other to broaden their knowledge base and share perspectives about their work practices; this often results in the learning and innovation environment that has been labelled as a Commu-nity of Practice (CoP). In the context of this paper, we are concerned with Vir-tual Communities of Practice (VCoP), which are those in which their members use ICT as their primary mode of interaction (Dubé et al., 2006: 147).
This paper is organized as follows: the next section, drawing on a litera-ture review, synthesizes both the motivations and the constraints that mem-bers of an organization experience when taking part in the knowledge creating processes of the VCoPs to which they belong; the third section describes an ongoing case study, taking place in Portugal, in order to identify these experi-ences. It details the methodology used and presents the results of the inter-views with members of the VCoPs within three multinationals. Results are also discussed. Finally, some conclusions on this research are drawn.
viRtual Communities of pRaCtiCe:
motivations and ConstRaints in
tHe Knowledge CReation pRoCess
Knowledge creation in VCoP is conditioned by several factors that can moti-vate or constrain this process. These can be individual (e.g., intrinsic factors) or collective (e.g., extrinsic factors related to the community), organizational (e.g., cultural and structural) or technological (e.g., user-friendly systems) as explained in the following paragraphs:
Individual:
■
Intrinsic factors (Soft) – Members get involved in acts –
of knowledge creation motivated by factors related to their personality, the satisfaction they feel by sharing their knowledge with others (Deci, 1975; Krogh and Grand, 2002);
Extrinsic factors (Hard) – Financial rewards, direct –
or indirect for sharing or creating knowledge (Hall, 2001; Hall and Graham, 2004). If members consider the cost/benefit relationship positive, they will get involved in these processes, otherwise they will stop sharing (Kelly and Thibaut, 1978). These factors are considered as short term motivations (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003: 191), and are important to attract new members to the community, but in the medium and long term they provoke more problems than benefits (Hall and Graham, 2004);
Collective – Factors related to the context in which the
■
group operates. For instance, if the group to which the members belong (organization or CoP) does not allow the development of feelings of trust (Roberts, 2006), they tend not to share their knowledge and are afraid of ask-ing questions (Krogh and Grand, 2002);
organizational culture – The involvement of workers in
■
the process of knowledge development is conditioned by cultural factors (Davenport and Prusak, 2003), a culture that motivates and rewards knowledge sharing, creates advantageous conditions for the development of knowl-edge creation. Values, language and common frame-works (Davenport and Prusak, 2003; Sharratt and Usoro, 2003) or “opportunity structures” can provide a fertile environment inside the community (Krogh and Grand, 2002). A shared vision and well-chosen organizational objectives also influence this process, because they pro-mote a feeling of involvement with the organization and a willingness to contribute within the workforce (Kim and Lee, 2005);
organizational structure – organizational structures
■
influence the sharing attitudes of collaborators (Kim and Lee, 2005) which, in turn, influence knowledge creation. Chung (2001) believes that bureaucratic and central-ized organizational structures tend to constrain knowl-edge creation, while more flexible and decentralized ones tend to motivate knowledge sharing, especially as regards tacit knowledge, because it allows a higher level of interaction between members;
Technological factors – Among the constraint factors
■
associated with technology, the values related with non-verbal language (e.g., cues, rituals), so essential to tacit
knowledge sharing, are lost (Krogh and Grand, 2002). This constraint is offset to some extent by the ease of access afforded by information technology, increasing the possibilities of communicating and collaborating to resolve problems, while also allowing access to more information (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003). These aspects of technology can thus be considered as motivating or con-straining knowledge creation in virtual environments. Technology should therefore allow members to social-ize, be easy to use (user friendly) and offer an assess-ment of the “health” of the community (e.g., number of registered members, number of active members, num-ber of knowledge artifacts and their production dates) (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2003: 25).
tHe Case study
Methodological approach
The research design uses a case study approach (Benbasat et al., 1987; Eisenhardt, 1989; Saunders et al., 2003: 93; Yin, 2003); to increase the sci-entific rigor, a multiple case study was developed for three organizations, each one with several “case units”, i.e. in each two or three VCoPs are ana-lyzed (Benbasat et al., 1987; Yin, 2003). In such circumstances, it is possible to obtain enough data to promote intra- and inter-organizational analysis and in this way increase the study’s relevance.
This is an exploratory study; its aim is to explore the concepts, causes and facts, which determine people’s attitudes. It takes a qualitative approach to the collection and analysis of data (Creswell, 2003: 212-15; Flick, 2005: 271). The process of gathering data occurred in two phases:
Phase A – Comprised the non-structured interviews (Creswell, 2003; Flick, 2005; Ghiglione and Matalon, 2005: 105; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Saunders et al., 2003: 248) involving the leaders of VCoPs, with the objective to refine the theoretical model developed from the literature review, with the application of a questionnaire. This also served to characterize the VCoP under study (Dubé et al., 2006);
Phase B – Comprised the semi-structured interviews (Creswell, 2003: 212; Flick, 2005; Ghiglione and Matalon, 2005: 105; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Saunders et al., 2003: 248; Zafeiriou et al., 2001: 86). Its frame-work was developed using the theoretical model of the previous phase and involved the members of the VCoP (Barañano, 2004: 93) Its objective was to verify the framework, as it related to the motivations and constraints felt by the members.
In Phase A, interviews were conducted via e-mail, since we were not able to arrange interviews face-to-face; according to the literature, this does not compromise the results of the study (Foster, 1994: 1286; Jansen et al., 2007; Mariampolski, 2001; Meho, 2006: 1285; Sheehan and McMillan, 1999). We interviewed 7 people in this phase.
Data from Phase B was gathered by both face-to-face interviews and through instant messaging. The first method was preferred because it allowed personal contact. The second was necessary to accommodate the timetables of the interviewees; again, this does not compromise the study (Fontes and o’Mahony, 2008: 2, 4; Mann and Stewart, 2000).
In the next paragraphs, we present and discuss some of the major results. First, motivating factors are presented; these are then followed by the constraining ones.
Data analysis and discussion of results
Data were gathered in three multinationals of the IT sector. These organiza-tions were chosen as knowledge-based organizaorganiza-tions (Engwall and Kipping, 2002; Maister, 1993).
In the organizations under study, we identified several types of VCoP: strategic communities
1. – The objective is the creation of
competitive advantages and innovation. The members of these communities usually assume tasks at the highest level, or they are those, in the organization, considered to be experts in the domain. Normally, they also belong to operational communities in the field, where they per-form their activities. They correspond to the epistemic communities presented by Amin and Roberts (2008), and Cohendet and Llerena (2003);
operational communities
2. of professionals that assume
tasks at an intermediary level (e.g., communities of proj-ect managers or sales people). These kinds of commu-nities usually have the objective to develop knowledge (to improve the performance of collaborators) and the creation of competitive advantages and innovation (taking as a start-ing point, the knowledge created in the community); operational communities with a more technical interest 3.
(e.g., a community of software development professionals) with the objective to improve the performance of collab-orators;
operational communities with interest in activity sectors, 4.
as distinct from professional areas. They can be found in the commercial sector and their objective is to develop knowledge on how the activity sector, to which they belong, acts and works (e.g., communities for the gov-ernment sector or big enterprises);
ad hoc communities
5. that emerge naturally from the
requirements of the organizational collaborators; for instance, when a new technology or a new professional interest emerges spontaneously. Some of these commu-nities evolve to become operational commucommu-nities or even strategic communities, while others disappear when the knowledge domain of the VCoP is no longer important. Motivating factors
The results suggest some interesting conclusions. None of the intervie-wees referred to direct extrinsic factors, such as financial rewards, as an issue to encourage people to actively participate in the VCoP. Also, none of them referred to organizational structure as a key issue, although one of the inter-viewees mentioned aspects concerning organizational culture as a potential factor which might cause the reuse of existing artifacts, rather than seeking new ways of doing things:
“Individuals are strongly encouraged to reuse all kinds of work arti-facts, maybe even more than they are encouraged to contribute.”
(interview D) There is also a generalized tendency to consider that success and even professional survival depend on membership of these communities. Indi-viduals are also motivated by the fact that the VCoP allows access to a huge amount of information and knowledge, which might be denied in other cir-cumstances. This information and/or knowledge might be the key for the suc-cess of the individual or organization. Some interviewees consider these com-munities as “the basis of knowledge in our distributed world” (interview D).
one of the interviewees established a direct connection between the VCoPs and innovation, stating that these communities constitute a fundamental resource:
“But the true value comes from adapting what’s available and using it to really innovate. This is not the most common use of these resources, but I think it is the one that makes a difference. By doing this, indi-viduals can make the most of what the community has to offer.”
(interview D) Constraining factors
The most important factors designated as a barrier to active participation in the community, in order to contribute, use and create knowledge, are the lack of time for these activities and the difficulty to reconcile them with the daily profes-sional stress situation. one of the interviewees also highlighted the fear of losing his/her job and the position he/she occupies in the hierarchy as a key issue pre-venting members from sharing what they know. However, this person also said that this feeling belongs more to the past rather than to the present. This means that something in the organization is changing; this might be generated in the VCoPs or even in the way people now see the importance of knowledge sharing to the survival of the organization, to keep the job and the development of an idea.
“The only thing that I can think of is protecting one’s position by retaining knowledge in a particular aspect. In fact, I think I never experienced such a position from any of the people I work with, but I have seen it a couple of times in a distant past. Could be part of a normal change resistance process that has now ended.”
(interview D) Some constraints have also been identified, in aspects concerning culture and organizational issues that limit the sharing, reuse and creation of knowl-edge in the communities. one of them concerns lack of recognition, when sharing and making available information and knowledge. However, this prob-lem has only been pointed out in one of the organizations studied. Another constraint relates to the lack of knowledge concerning the existence of com-munities of practice in the organization.
In terms of intangible factors, interviewees said that there is a natural human tendency to use existing knowledge artifacts since “using” new ones takes extra time and effort. This category only emerged in data gathered from the interviewees; it does not appear in the literature. These issues concern the learning and innovation process. Members see these processes as consuming additional time and resources; not all of them want to make this investment:
“There’s a natural tendency for just using what’s available, to transform it and innovate takes time and additional effort.”
(interview D) Another barrier relates to the characteristics of each member; readiness to learn will vary from person to person:
“It takes time to learn, and not everybody will be able to do it at the same level.”
(interview D) Some cultural differences and literacy difficulties, due to the fact that all members do not have the same mother language, have also been pointed out. The communication among collaborators throughout the world is affected by cultural differences (e.g., expressions that are used in a certain country and that can be misunderstood or not understood at all by persons of other countries) and mother tongue. This can give rise to a breakdown in communication.
Another issue concerns the existence of a large number of knowledge arti-facts with little or no relevance to the work of members.
The technological aspects have been widely referred as constraints pre-venting an active involvement in the community. Within this category there are the problems related to the difficulty of access to the community; this mani-fests itself in slow response times; poor web design, the lack of tools to extract information efficiently, and tools that are difficult to use and that are not ade-quate for the requirements of the knowledge sharing process. These factors are so important that one of the interviewees considers that technological lim-itations are the only constraint to knowledge sharing:
“For me, at a personal level in terms of willing to share, there are no barri-ers, just lack of tools/systems allowing keeping and gathering knowledge in an easy way while ensuring that it is always updated (the personal con-tact with other members is not always possible, efficient and effective).”
(interview F)
ConClusions and
ReCommendations
The results of this research have already identified three critical issues, when organizations try to take advantage of the full potential of Virtual Communi-ties of Practice as an information source and as a privileged place of knowl-edge creation and innovation:
In spite of the investment in and availability of the commu-1.
nities, organizations seem not to be ready yet to profit from one of their main assets – innovation – and through it, the creation and generation of collective advantages. Intervie-wees mention the lack of a sharing and collaborative cul-ture in the process of knowledge creation. Motivation only concerns the reuse of knowledge artifacts, efficiency and productivity and not the creation of innovative ideas; Due to the lack of a clear relationship between cost and 2.
benefits in active participation in the community, intervie-wees see the lack of time as a big constraining factor; Technological factors are also mentioned as significant 3.
barriers to the process of knowledge creation.
As for factors that motivate members to participate, the recognition of the community as a knowledge source, giving ready access to experts and encour-aging professional development, is very important.
It is recommended that organizations promote the role of VCoPs as sources of innovation which create competitive advantage by developing a culture where knowledge sharing and reuse of information are recognized and valued.
RefeRenCes
Amin, A. and Roberts, J. (2008). “Knowing in action: Beyond Communities of Practice”, Research Policy, Vol. 37, p. 353-369.
Barañano, A. M. (2004). Métodos e Técnicas de Investigação em Gestão, Lisboa: Edições Sílabo. Benbasat, I., Goldsteins, D. K. and Mead, M. (1987). “The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 369-385.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed., London: Sage.
Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (2003). Conhecimento Empresarial: Como as organizações gerenciam o seu capital intelectual, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Campus.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Dubé, L., Bourhis, A. and Jacob, R. (2006). “Towards a typology of Virtual Communities of Practice”. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, Vol. 1, p. 69-93. URL: http://ijikm.org/Volume1/IJIKMv1p069-093Dube.pdf.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, oct, p. 532-550. URL: http://pages.cpsc. ucalgary.ca/~sillito/cpsc-601.23/readings/eisenhardt-1989.pdf.
Engwall, L. and Kipping, M. (2002). «Introduction: Management consulting as a knowledge industry”. In Engwall, L. and Kipping, M. (Eds.). Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge Industry (p. 1-16). New York: oxford University Press.
Flick, U. (2005). Métodos Qualitativos na Investigação Científica. Lisboa: Monitor.
Fontes, T. o. and o’Mahony, M. (2008). “In-depth interviewing by instant messaging”. Social Research Update, Spring, Vol. 53, p. 1-4.
Foster, G. (1994). “Fishing with the net for research data”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 2, october/December, 91-97, quoted in Lehu, J. M., 2004. “Back to life! Why brands grow old and sometimes die and what managers then do: An exploratory qualitative research put into the French context”. Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 10, p. 133-152.
FQS – Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (2001). Qualitative Market Research: A Comprehensive Guide. URL: http://www.qualitative-research. net/index.php/fqs.
Ghiglione, R. and Matalon, B. (2005). o Inquérito: Teoria e Prática, 4th ed., oeiras: Celta Editora.
Hall, H. (2001) Social exchange for knowledge exchange. Paper presented at the Conference Managing knowledge: conversations and critiques. University of Leicester, 10-11 April 2001. URL: http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/publication/op/getpublication/publicationid/321908.
Hall, H. and Graham, D. (2004). “Creation and recreation: Motivating collaboration to generate knowledge capital in online communities”. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24, p. 235-246.
Jansen, K. J., Corley, K. G. and Jansen, B. J. (2007). E-Survey Methodology. Penn State College of Information Sciences in Technology. URL: http://www.websm.org/uploadi/editor/1174987205esurvey_ chapter_jansen.pdf.
Kelly, H. H. and Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relationships: A Theory of Interdependence, New York: Wiley.
Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2005). “Employee knowledge sharing capabilities in public and private organizations: Does organizational context matter?” Proceedings da 38th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, Hawaii, Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE Computer Society, p. 1-10.
Krogh, G. V. and Grand, S. (2002). From economic theory toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”. In Choo, C. W. and Bontis, N. (Eds.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and organizational Knowledge (p. 163-184). New York: oxford University Press.
Maister, D. H. (1993). Managing the Professional Service Firm, New York: The Free Press. Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000). Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching, London: Sage.
Meho, L. I. (2006). “E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57, No. 10, p. 1284-1295.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd
ed., Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Popadiuk, S. and Choo, C. W. (2006). “Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related?” International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26, p. 302-312.
Preece, J. and Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2003). Draft – online Communities: Focusing on Sociability and Usability. Final version in: Preece, J. and Diane Maloney-Krichmar (2003). online Communities. In Jacko, J. and Sears, A. (Eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 596-620. URL: http://socialcomputingresearch.net/articles/ preece_onlinecommunities.pdf.
Roberts, J. (2006). “Limits to Communities of Practice“. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, May, p. 623-639.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. 3rd
edition, Financial Times: Prentice Hall.
Sharratt, M. and Usoro, A. (2003). “Understanding knowledge-sharing in online Communities of Practice”. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management [on-line], Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 187-196. URL: http://www.ejkm.com/volume-1/volume1-issue-2/issue2-art18-sharratt.pdf.
Sheehan, K. B. and McMillan, S. J. (1999). “Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration”. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 45-54.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, London: Sage.
Zafeiriou, G., Nunes, J. B. and Ford, N. (2001). “Using students’ perceptions of participation in collaborative learning activities in the design of online learning environments”. Education for Information, Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 83-106.
