Communities of practice: creating and sharing knowledge/Comunidades de pratica: criacao e compartilhamento do conhecimento/Comunidades de practica: creacion y accion de compartir el conocimiento.
Hartung, Kaytson ; Oliveira, Mirian
1. INTRODUCTION
When facing a highly competitive and unstable market due to the
constant economic fluctuations, it is increasingly important for
companies to focus on results and increase efficiency and productivity
(MACHADO, 2006). In this context, knowledge plays a decisive role, and a
number of companies are now seeking to capitalize on this fact (WENGER;
SNYDER, 2000; LOPEZ-NICOLAS; MERONO-CERDAN, 2011). The knowledge that
companies seek in the market (from consultants, for example) can often
be found within the company itself.
Knowledge management (KM) is defined as the process by which an
organization creates, captures, acquires and uses knowledge to support
and improve its performance (KINNEY, 1998; LEE; YANG, 2000). KM
represents one way of meeting the need to increase productivity and is
essential for long-term organizational efficiency, as it improves the
flow of information and knowledge (HARRIS, 2005; LOPEZ-NICOLAS;
MERONO-CERDAN, 2011). According to Kratzer, Zboralski and Leenders
(2009), a growing number of companies have applied KM systems in order
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of knowledge, and
several have adopted Communities of Practice as a means of implementing
those systems.
Communities of Practice (CoPs) are "groups of people
informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint
enterprise" (WENGER; SNYDER, 2000, p. 139). These are informal
groups that go beyond organizational, geographical or communication
boundaries and may belong to several organizations in various countries.
According to Teigland (2000) and Kim, Hong and Suh (2012), CoPs play a
key role in providing an organization with competitive advantage, thus
adding value to it in various ways. CoPs help guide the strategy, begin
new lines of business, solve problems faster, disseminate best
practices, develop professional skills and help recruit and retain
talent (WENGER; SNYDER, 2000). Additionally, CoPs have an impact on
various aspects of the organization, such as collaboration,
coordination, synergy, learning curve, productivity, efficiency and
innovation (FONTAINE; MILLEN, 2004; LEE; SUH; HONG, 2010; KIM; HONG;
SUH, 2012). In the literature, CoPs are associated with both the
creation and sharing of knowledge. Thus, this study aims to contribute
towards the knowledge available in this field by analyzing the
strategies adopted by CoPs in relation to the creation and sharing of
knowledge and, thus, identify the aspects that influence these
phenomena.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: section 2
presents a literature review focused on the characteristics of CoPS and
their relationship with the creation and sharing of knowledge; section 3
describes the methodological steps adopted; in section 4, there is a
discussion of the results; and section 5 contains the conclusions and
ideas for further research.
2. COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND THE CREATION AND SHARING OF
KNOWLEDGE
Communities of Practice (CoPs) have existed ever since humans began
to interact socially. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) provide
examples, such as prehistoric hunters who debated the best ways to kill
their prey, medieval knights who were trained for combat, writers who
exchange ideas about their work, artists who get together to discuss a
new technique or style of painting, gang members learning how to survive
and mothers that join their children in games and discuss parenting tips
with each other. The term "Community of Practice" was
introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991) in the 1990s when they were
studying situational learning and ways of sharing knowledge.
CoPs can be defined as "groups of people who share a concern,
a set of problems, or passion about a topic, and who deepen their
knowledge and expertise on this topic by interacting on an ongoing
basis" (WENGER; MCDERMOTT; SNYDER, 2002, p. 4). CoPs provide
multiple points of view and thus increase and improve the interpretation
of knowledge (BHATT, 2001; LEE; SUH; HONG, 2010). In the perception of
these authors, CoPs are associated with both the idea of sharing and of
creating knowledge.
Generally, CoPs arise spontaneously, independently and are
self-managed, allowing anyone to participate (WENGER, 1998b), yet
managers have difficulty understanding how to implement these
communities, their structure, or how they function (BISHOP et al.,
2008). CoPs are entities that are constantly changing and are not stable
or static (ROBERTS, 2006; DU PLESSIS, 2008). They change as members join
and leave, with changes in organizational culture and especially when
the organization's business strategy changes (DU PLESSIS, 2008).
While the management team cannot form CoPs, they can, however,
facilitate the spontaneous emergence of CoPs and support those who wish
to develop them (ROBERTS, 2006; DU PLESSIS, 2008). CoPs are
self-managing social entities that choose their own leaders and the
rules by which they operate (DU PLESSIS, 2008). The manager's role
is to support the development of CoPs and perhaps try to structure their
spontaneity, encouraging the alignment of changes in practices between
communities and helping to transfer knowledge within the organization
(BROWN; DUGUID, 2001).
According to Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) and Kingston
(2012), the structure of CoPs can vary according to the following
aspects:
* Size--small, involving only a few specialists, or large involving
hundreds of people;
* Time--short shelf life, such as a COBOL developer community, or
can last for centuries such as a group of craft workers;
* Location--distributed across different countries, in which case
interaction may occur only by phone or e-mail, or local, with weekly
meetings;
* Composition--can be homogeneous, composed only of people from a
single discipline, or heterogeneous, composed of people from different
disciplines and backgrounds;
* Limits--may include members exclusively from within an
organization or may include members from within and from outside an
organization;
* Origin--may be spontaneous, beginning without any effort or
intervention on the part of the organization, where members come
together spontaneously, or they may be intentional, where the
organization intentionally introduces them in order to develop some
specific skills;
* Recognition--institutionalized or unrecognized by the
organization, depending on the type of relationship they cultivate with
the organization, they may be in a variety of intermediate states such
as informal, legitimate, and supported.
In order to function, a CoP requires the support of a set of
virtual and non-virtual resources, such as a place to meet, a repository
of ideas and record of the activities, a list of the members and their
interests, means of communication between members and ways of sharing
tacit knowledge (COAKES, 2006). CoPs may make use of technologically
advanced tools with content management systems, or may be just a group
of people debating a particular problem, with the tools used for their
support ranging between these two extreme possibilities (DU PLESSIS,
2008). Coakes (2006) mentions video conferencing, instant messaging
applications and e-mail as examples of tools that promote communication
between members.
In order to facilitate interaction between members in different
geographic locations and time zones, Wenger et al. (2005) mention
asynchronous communication tools such as blogs, wikis, e-mail, mailing
lists, forums, RSS (really simple syndication) and the use of integrated
tools such as portals and other proprietary software. These authors also
argue that the technological tools available to a CoP must be easy to
use and learn, evolve over time, be easily accessible and designed with
the end-user's perspective in mind.
A lack of, or limited access to technological tools may make it
difficult for the individuals in an organization to find the knowledge
they seek (DU PLESSIS, 2008). KM systems must enable integration and be
sufficiently flexible to facilitate the transformation of different
types of knowledge (DAVIS; SUBRAHMANIAN; WESTEMBERG, 2005).
The learning potential of organizations is structured by the CoPs
through the knowledge they develop at their core and the interactions
they provide within their limits, with people who are not members or
with other CoPs (WENGER, 1998a). In order for CoPs to develop the
ability to create and retain knowledge, they need to have suitable
technological and organizational infrastructures (WENGER, 1998a).
Knowledge is specific to the context (time, space and relationship)
and is created in localized actions (HAYEK, 1945; SUCHMAN, 2007; NONAKA;
TOYAMA, 2008). According to Nonaka and Toyama (2008, p. 99),
"knowledge cannot be created in a vacuum, and needs a context where
information is given meaning through interpretation to become
knowledge". The same authors introduce the "ba" as a
shared, dynamic context, in which knowledge is created, shared and
consumed, thus providing the energy, the quality and the spaces to
foster the knowledge spiral. The authors also point out that the ba
should not be understood as a physical space, but as interactions that
occur at specific times and places.
According to Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002), knowledge
conversion processes require the interaction and informality provided by
a CoP. To share tacit knowledge, processes such as storytelling,
encouraging debate, coaching and learning take place within a CoP, and,
in order to be applied, explicit knowledge requires tacit knowledge
(WENGER; MCDERMOTT; SNYDER, 2002).
Therefore, to analyze the strategies adopted by CoPs in relation to
the creation and sharing of knowledge, the structure (size, time,
location, composition, limits, origin and recognition), and non-virtual
and virtual resources (e.g., wiki meetings, among others) will be
considered.
3. METHOD
To achieve the proposed objective, a qualitative approach has been
adopted together with the case study method, since the latter is
considered appropriate when the subject under investigation is a
contemporary phenomenon within a real life context (YIN, 2005).
The unit of analysis, according to Yin (2005), is directly related
to the structure of the research question. Thus, the unit of analysis in
this research is a CoP in a large multinational company. Given that five
CoPs were analyzed within a single software development company, this is
a multiple case study. Table 1 summarizes the profiles of the analyzed
CoPs, and the data collection activities. The primary data for the study
were obtained using interviews, observation and documents. The documents
were stored in the document repositories of the SharePoint portal of
each CoP.
In addition to members of the CoPs, three managers and a specialist
in knowledge management who were not directly involved in the CoPs were
interviewed. Table 2 shows the interviewees' profiles. For the
managers and the specialist the questions were generalized in order to
cover all the CoPs.
The CoPs chosen for this study are within a company that was
founded in 1980s and is now one of the leading computer companies in the
world, with about 100,000 employees and operations in several countries,
with revenues of tens of billions of dollars (FORBES, 2008). Part of the
company is focused on software development through centers distributed
around the world. The company was selected because it has several CoPs
with different features, areas of operations and degrees of maturity.
All the CoPs will be considered in this study.
The Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005) contains guidelines for collecting and
interpreting data on technological innovation. Pursuant to this
document, companies are classified according to their size (based on
number of employees) and type of institution, with regard to their
nationality. Companies in which more than 50% of the control is foreign
are considered multinationals according to the guidelines in the
Frascati Manual (OECD, 1994). Therefore, pursuant to this
classification, the company where this research took place is a private
multinational company with over 5000 employees.
The construct validity and reliability were considered to ensure
their quality. In order to validate the construct, multiple sources of
evidence were used including observation of the CoPs' meetings,
collection of documents from the CoPs' websites and the preparation
of a script to be used in the semi-structured interviews, which was
subsequently validated by two experts, one from the IT area and another
from the Knowledge Management area. For reliability, all the procedures
will be documented, thus creating a case study protocol and a database
to store the necessary data.
The data collected from the interviews, observations and documents
were submitted to content analysis, which is a set of techniques used to
systematically describe the form and content of written or spoken
material (BARDIN, 2008) and that can be used in an exploratory or
confirmatory manner.
The interviews were categorized and analyzed with the help of
MAXQDA 10[R] software. This software facilitated the encoding process
while improving the reliability of the analytical process.
Because it is a cross-sectional study, all the data concerning the
origin and history of the development of the CoPs are retrospective. As
some of the CoPs have been in existence for more than five years, there
have been changes in the people who participate and in the activities.
Thus, some of the current participants are not fully aware of the origin
of the CoP and its development, while others may currently express a
different attitude from that demonstrated at that time. It is therefore
conceivable that the reports obtained during the present study might be
different from those that would have been obtained if the interviews had
occurred at the time the CoPs were originally established, when they
could have reported the events more vividly and accurately. In order to
mitigate this limitation, the collection includes more than one
interviewee from each of the CoPs.
4. KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND SHARING IN THE COPS
According to the members of the CoPs that were interviewed, 4 CoPs
(Project Management, Java, Microsoft and Testers) originated out of a
Knowledge Management initiative which began in 2005. Later, two other
CoPs emerged (Agile Methods and Requirements). The more recent CoPs
(Agile Methods and Requirements) were formed about three years ago, when
the original CoPs were well attended and highly active, which may
indicate that the success of one CoP may contribute to the emergence of
another. Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of analyzed CoPs.
According to interviewees, the Java CoP is the only one that does
not have regular activities, except for localized training, given by
former members of the CoP's core team. This can be explained by the
lack of appreciation shown by the company and members who do not see the
CoP as something that provides them with value.
All the reports show the approval, though limited, of the company,
as it allows staff to take the time to participate and use the resources
existing in the company, such as teleconferencing, a portal,
newsletters, video conferencing, a private micro blogging network and
the corporate blog. The reports also show that the CoP members believe
that the CoPs are not recognized and valued by the company, and that
there is too little time available to participate. The Testers CoP is in
a peculiar situation: it has limited support, since several people who
were in the CoP's core team have been promoted to managerial
positions. These people, besides believing in the idea of the CoP,
encourage and try to remove barriers to its development, actively
participating in the day to day activities.
Managers 1 and 2 claim that the company recognizes the value of the
CoPs, but fails to value them as much as it should, since there is no
budget for awards or training programs provided by the CoPs. According
to the expert in KM, the CoPs lost support and appreciation within the
senior management when the director who had sponsored them left the
company.
There is a common pattern to the profile of participation in CoPs:
a core team that focuses solely or largely on the interactions in the
CoP and peripheral members who have a more passive role in such
activities. As pointed out by Wenger (1998b), the two profiles, active
and peripheral members, are expected to be found in any one CoP. There
is also expected to be an increase in participation over the course of
time, an equalization of knowledge and the creation of a common context
(WENGER; MCDERMOTT; SNYDER, 2002), which was not observed in the
analyzed CoPs. Manager 1 said that one explanation for the lack of
development seen in the CoPS is that not all the experts are
participating.
The motivation for people to participate in the CoPs is identified
as being voluntary in all the reports, that is, people do not feel
obliged by their managers or the company, which in part highlights the
company's limited support for CoPs. One motivation that appears in
several reports is visibility, where the participants see participation
in the CoP as an opportunity to demonstrate their work to others in the
company. Other motivations that appear in the reports are the exchange
of knowledge, the learning and the networking. In more than one CoP, a
distinctive profile of people who do not perform a given role, and want
to learn how to perform that role through the knowledge shared in the
CoPs was found. Networking enables people to quickly solve problems,
facilitating everyday activities. The people seem motivated only on the
individual level, no company-focused motivation for participating was
perceived.
Both the CoPs' participants and the managers take the view
that people participate in CoPs because of the visibility and the
knowledge sharing. These motivations may be associated with detachment
of the management team from the CoPs.
In terms of size, the CoPs have between 20 and 100 members. There
are three categories of participants: the core team; peripheral members;
and occasional participants. The core team consists of 2 to 12 people,
and facilitates the CoPs' activities. In some cases, such as the
project management CoP, the core team is the only one in which there is
frequent interaction. The peripheral members are those individuals
formally enrolled in the CoP, whose participation can be identified in
the collected documents. Occasional participants are those who have
participated in events, or who have at some time enrolled in the CoP,
but as there is no formal record of their participation, are not
considered members.
According to the reports, all CoPs interact through meetings. In
some of the CoPs (Agile Methods, Microsoft and Project Management), the
meetings are usually attended only by the core team. The Agile Methods,
Project Management and Java CoPs have also given frequent training
courses for employees, which is a way to interact with new, usually,
less experienced members. The Agile Methods and Testers CoPs are using
the private micro-blogging network to interact not only with other
members, but also with people who do not participate in the CoP. The
Testers and Requirements CoPs, which have members in other regions, also
make use of teleconferencing with presentations, using Live Meeting for
their interactions. The same occurs with the Project Management CoP,
which, though being local, plans events in which people from other
regions participate. The types of tools and forms of interaction adopted
by the CoPs are related to the location of the participants. For
example, the members of the Testers CoP, which is global, use
teleconferencing and the private micro-blogging network to interact,
while the Microsoft CoP just holds face-to-face meetings attended by the
core team. The types of tools and forms of interaction are also
associated with the CoP's activities. An example of this is the
Project Management CoP, where the main activity is training. In this
case, the CoP's website is used to disseminate knowledge related to
training events, and only the more experienced core team members, who
plan the training program, attend the meetings.
The CoPs hold meetings on a weekly, biweekly or monthly basis,
depending on the CoP. It was only possible to confirm the regularity of
the Requirements CoP's monthly meeting because it produces a record
of each meeting which is available on its website. The Java CoP is not
having meetings, and there has been no interaction in the last year,
except for training sessions. This may be due to the fact the CoPs now
give greater emphasis to activities related to knowledge creation.
According to the reports, with the exception of the Requirements
CoP, there is trust among the members of the CoP core teams, which tends
to facilitate communication and knowledge creation according to
Zboralski (2009). In the interviews it was noted that in the Java and
Microsoft CoPs the members do not feel sufficiently confident to ask
questions and expose themselves. This may be due to the fact that these
two CoPs are more technically orientated and are formed only by software
developers. The fact that developers are the majority in the company
also intensifies the competition among them. The identity formed by the
CoPs can also mean that other accepted lines of thought are rejected, so
that people with alternative ways of proceeding may stop participating
because their ideas are not accepted.
Below, there is a table comparing the COPs and the tools they
employ. One can see that email, Microsoft SharePoint and
teleconferencing are used by all the CoPs.
Each of the CoPs has a site on the Microsoft SharePoint Portal,
provided by the company to facilitate interaction. The portal has
ready-to-use tools such as ads, blog, forums, document repository and
calendaring. When collecting documents from this portal, it was noted
that currently the site is little used and that the majority of files,
forum posts and documents dates from the period 2007-2008. The Testers
and Project Management CoPs also publish occasional news or calls for
publications in the company's weekly newsletter that is sent to the
employees in Brazil. In addition, the Testers CoP also publishes reports
in the official company blog, which can be accessed by employees around
the world. So, there appears to be an emphasis on interactions related
to tacit knowledge.
The passivity of the majority of the members is a problem
identified in several CoPs. In the Testers CoP, although the members do
not of ten participate in meetings, their presence is notable at the
events organized by the CoP. Again it is necessary to show its target
audience the value provided by the CoP. It is also important to try to
recruit the best specialists, because it can motivate people to
participate in the CoP.
Below, Table 5 presents the positioning of the resources of the
virtual and non-virtual resources of the CoPs in relation to knowledge
creation and sharing, based on data from the interviews, observations
and documents. The low level of knowledge creation is evident in all the
CoPs.
Table 5 clearly shows that knowledge sharing is the main focus of
the activities in the all the CoPs. The CoP's activities should be
characterized by a balance between creation and sharing, something which
is not found in any of the analyzed CoPs. This imbalance indicates that
the CoPs may not be achieving knowledge maturity, which can be explained
by them having a high membership turnover or because the main motivating
factor of the people tends to be individually based. The Microsoft CoP
seems to be the only one with a creation initiative, although this
activity is concentrated mainly in the core team. This imbalance also
shows the stagnation of the development of the CoPs, which may explain
the difficulty in reaching knowledge maturity in any particular domain.
The company approves the existence of the CoPs, but does not
provide financial resources for their operation, which the members of
the CoPs tend to perceive as a lack of support. Moreover, the
company's management believes that it should not interfere with the
functioning of the CoPs and uses this argument to justify the low level
of support provided. The lack of interest and support of the company
contribute towards the individual-based motivation for participation in
the CoPs. Being unsure of their value, the company does not direct the
CoPs, neither closing them nor directly supporting them. By supporting
the CoPs the company could get more benefits and utilize their potential
to create knowledge and innovate products and services. Despite the lack
of support and recognition, the CoPs have existed for several years
within the company, which may be due to the company's steady growth
in number of employees, which feeds a constant need for knowledge
sharing among the employees.
A relationship can be seen between the focus on sharing tacit
knowledge, the individualist motivation for people to participate in the
CoP and the tools used for interaction. Although the CoPs' websites
include forums, document repository, blogs and other tools designed to
facilitate the exchange of explicit knowledge, they are little used,
probably because the involvement of members of the CoPs tends not to
focus on the company, but on the individual. Thus, the knowledge created
in the CoPs is not externalized, so limiting the number of people who
could benefit. The CoPs use tools which emphasize explicit knowledge to
recruit new members, but, once recruited, the new members focus on tacit
knowledge, following their own motivations, so that there is a concern
to externalize knowledge, which remains restricted to a few people.
Based on the analysis of the CoPs, the following propositions
(illustrated in Figure 1) were developed: The support of the company
influences the focus of the CoP in knowledge creation and/or sharing;
the support of the company influences the choice of activities in the
CoP and the factors that motivate participation; the motivation of the
participants influences the focus of the CoP on the knowledge creation
and/or sharing; the activities of the CoP influence the focus on
knowledge creation and/or sharing; the trust among members of the CoP
influences the focus on knowledge creation and/or sharing. These
propositions will be the subject of future investigations.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
5. CONCLUSIONS
The strategies adopted by the CoPs were found to be predominantly
focused on knowledge sharing rather than knowledge creation, which can
directly influence the company's capacity to innovate based on the
CoPs. The stagnated development of the CoPs and their respective
knowledge domains prevent them from reaching their full potential, which
could bring more benefits to the individuals and the company.
The motivation for people to participate in CoPs is related more to
learning than to actually developing knowledge. Apparently, people
participate when they identify a gap in the knowledge they need to
acquire, but do not continue to participate once that knowledge has been
mastered. The failure of the company to value the CoPs, the activities
of the CoPs, the lack of confidence and the predominantly individual
nature of the motivation to participate, mean that the CoPs are unable
to invest in developing new fields of knowledge, and thus, fail to reach
their potential or provide the company with greater long-term benefits.
The stage at which each CoP finds itself seems to have a
determinant role in terms of their performance in developing a new field
of knowledge and potentially the development of innovations. All the
analyzed CoPs have similar characteristics: individual motivation for
participation, polarization of activities, lack of confidence of some
members and lack of formal support and value attributed by the company
and by the employees. These factors seem to account for non-development
of the CoPs and of knowledge creation. On the other hand, the tools, as
well as the diversity of knowledge domains, seem to have a secondary
role in the development of the CoPs.
In the analyzed CoPs it was found that: the level of support from
the company influences the motivation of the participants, the
activities and the focus on knowledge sharing; the motivations of the
participants, the activities and the level of trust among participants
influence the strategy of the CoP (priority given to sharing knowledge
rather than to the creation of new knowledge). These relationships will
be the subject of future research.
DOI:10.5700/rege507
Recebido em: 13/1/2012
Aprovado em: 10/7/2013
Kaytson Hartung
Mestre pela Escola de Administracao da Pontificia Universidade
Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS)--Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil
Consultor de desenvolvimento de software da Dell Computadores do Brasil
E-mail: kaytson@gmail.com
Mirian Oliveira
Professora e pesquisadora da Pontificia Universidade Catolica do
Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS)--Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil Doutora pela Escola
de Administracao da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
E-mail: miriano@pucrs.br
6. REFERENCES
BARDIN, L. Analise de Conteudo. Lisboa: Edicoes 70, 2008.
BHATT, G. D. Knowledge management in organizations: examining the
interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of
Knowledge Management, v. 5, n. 1, p. 68, 2001.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419>.
BISHOP, J.; BOUCHLAGHEM, D.; GLASS, J.; MATSUMOTO, I. Identifying
and Implementing Management Best Practice for Communities of Practice.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, v. 4, p. 160-175, 2008.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/aedm.2008.0080>.
BROWN, J. S.; DUGUID, P. Structure and spontaneity: knowledge and
organization. In: NONAKA, I.; TEECE, D. (Ed.). Managing Industrial
Knowledge. London: Sage, 2001. p. 44-67.
COAKES, E. Communities of Practice and Technology Support. In:
COAKES, E.; CLARKE, S. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of communities of practice in
information and knowledge management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference,
2006.
DAVIS, J. G.; SUBRAHMANIAN, E.; WESTEMBERG, A. W. The
"global" and the "local" in knowledge management.
Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 9, n. 1, p. 101, 2005.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270510582992>.
DU PLESSIS, M. The strategic drivers and objectives of communities
of practice as vehicles for knowledge management in small and medium
enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, v. 28, n.
1, p. 61-67, 2008. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.05.00
2>.
FONTAINE, M. A.; MILLEN, D. R. Understanding the Benefits and
Impact of Communities of Practice. In: HILDRETH, P. M.; KIMBLE, C.
(Ed.). Knowledge networks: innovation through communities of practice.
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub., 2004. 330p.
FORBES. The Global 2000. 2008. Disponivel em:
<http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/18/
biz_2000global08_The-Global2000_Company_6. html>. Acesso em: 16 de
jun. 2009.
HARRIS, T. Improving the Deal with Knowledge Management. KM World,
v. 14, n. 10, p. S4, 2005.
HAYEK, F. A. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic
Review, v. 35, n. 4, p. 519-530,1945.
KIM, S.-J.; HONG, J.-Y.; SUH, E.-H. A diagnosis framework for
identifying the current knowledge sharing activity status in a community
of practice.
Expert Systems with Applications, v. 39, n. 18, p. 13093-13107,
2012. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj. eswa.2012. 05.092>.
KINGSTON, J. Choosing a Knowledge Dissemination Approach. Knowledge
and Process Management, v. 19, n. 3, p. 160-170, 2012.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1391>.
KINNEY, T. Knowledge Management, Intellectual Capital and Adult
Learning. Adult Learning, v. 10, n. 2, p. 2-4, 1998.
KRATZER, J.; ZBORALSKI, K.; LEENDERS, R. T. A. J. Interaction
quality within communities of practice: contextual factors of utilising
different communication media. Int. J. Networking and Virtual
Organisations, v. 6, n. 2, p. 199-223, 2009.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJNVO.2009. 022975>.
LAVE, J.; WENGER, E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. 138 p.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97 80511815355>.
LEE, C. C.; YANG, J. Knowledge value chain. Journal of Management,
v. 19, n. 9, p. 783-793, 2000.
LEE, J.; SUH, E.; HONG, J. A maturity model based CoP evaluation
framework: A case study of strategic CoPs in a Korean company. Expert
Systems with Applications, v. 31, n. 6, p. 502-509, 2010.
LOPEZ-NICOLAS, C.; MERONO-CERDAN, A. L. Strategic knowledge
management, innovation and performance. International Journal of
Information Management, v. 31, n. 6, p. 502-509, 2011.
<http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt. 2011.02.003>.
MACHADO, D. D. N. A dinamica da criacao e gestao do conhecimento:
Um estudo de caso. Revista Administracao, v. 5, n. 1, p. 56-71, 2006.
NONAKA, I.; TOYAMA, R. Criacao do Conhecimento como Processo
Sintetizador. In: TAKEUCHI, H.; NONAKA, I. (Ed.). Gestao do
Conhecimento. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008. 320 p.
OECD. The measurement of scientific and technological activities:
proposed standard practice for surveys of research and experimental
development: Frascati manual 1993. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development: Statistical Office of the European
Communities, 1994. 261 p.
--. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological
innovation data. 3. ed. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development: Statistical Office of the European Communities, 2005.
162 p.
ROBERTS, J. Limits to Communities of Practice. Journal of
Management Studies, v. 43, n. 3, p. 623-639, 2006.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6486.2006.00618.x>.
SUCHMAN, L. A. Plans and situated actions: The problem of
human-machine communication. 2. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
TEIGLAND, R. Communities of practice at an Internet Firm:
Netovation vs. on-time performance. In: LESSER, E. L.; FONTAINE, M. A.;
SLUSHER, J. A. (Ed.). Knowledge and communities: Butterworth-Heinemann,
2000. 151-178. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B9
78-0-75067293-1.50013-5>.
WENGER, E. Communities of practice: Learning as a social system.
Systems thinker, v. 9, n. 5, p. 1-5, 1998a.
WENGER, E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and
identity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998b. 318 p.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932>.
WENGER, E.; MCDERMOTT, R. A.; SNYDER, W. Cultivating communities of
practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 2002. 284 p.
WENGER, E.; WHITE, N.; SMITH, J. D.; ROWE, K. Technology for
communities. In: CEFRIO (Ed.). Guide de mise en place et
d'animation de communautes de pratique intentionelle. Quebec:
CEFRIO, 2005.
WENGER, E. C.; SNYDER, W. M. Communities of practice: the
organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, v. 78, n. 1, p.
139-145, 2000.
YIN, R. K. Estudo de caso: planejamento e metodos. 3. ed. Porto
Alegre: Bookman, 2005.
ZBORALSKI, K. Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of
practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 13, n. 3, p. 90-101, 2009.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1367327091096 2897>.
Table 1--Summary of the CoPs
CoP Size Collected Observation Interviews
documents sessions
Agile Methods 5 to 30 19 3 2
Project Management 5 to 300 344 2 4
Java 5 to 60 192 0 2
Microsoft 10 to 90 154 0 2
Testers 8 to 35 235 1 4
Requirements 51 599 1 2
Table 2--Profile of the Interviewees
CoP Interviewees Years with the company
Agile Methods Interviewee 1 Between 5 and 10 years
Interviewee 2 Between 5 and 10 years
Project Management Interviewee 3 Between 5 and 10 years
Interviewee 4 Between 5and 10 years
Interviewee 5 Between 5and 10 years
Interviewee 6 Between 5and 10 years
Java Interviewee 7 Between 5and 10 years
Interviewee 8 Between 5 and 10 years
Microsoft Interviewee 9 Between 5 and 10 years
Interviewee 10 Between 3 and 5 years
Testers Interviewee 11 Between 5 and 10 years
Interviewee 12 Between 5 and 10 years
Interviewee 13 Between 3 and 5 years
Interviewee 14 Between 3 and 5 years
Requirements Interviewee 15 Between 5 and 10 years
Interviewee 16 Between 3 and 5 years
Managers Manager 1 Between 10 and 15 years
Manager 2 Between 10 and 15 years
Manager 3 Between 10 and 15 years
KM specialist Specialist 1 Between 5 and 10 years
Table 3--Characteristics of the Analyzed CoPs
CoPs Size Age
Agile Methods 4 people in the core team, 2 to 3.5
30 peripheral members years
Project management 6 people in the core team, 5 years
20 to 50 peripheral
members
Java 8 people in the core team, 5 years
60 peripheral members
Microsoft 12 people in the core team, 5 years
approximately 100
peripheral members
Testers 8 people in the core team, 5 years
35 peripheral members
Requirements 51 members 3 years
CoPs Location Participation
Agile Methods Local Only the core team participate
Project management Local Only the core team participate
Java Local The core team mainly
participate, with the occasional
participation of peripheral
members
Microsoft Local The core team mainly
participate, with the occasional
participation of peripheral
members
Testers Global The core team mainly
participate, with frequent
participation of peripheral
members in the events
Requirements Global Monthly meeting via
teleconference and Live
Meeting
Table 4--Tools used by the CoPs
CoP Agile Project Java
Tools Methods Management
CoP Blog X X
Corporative Blog
Company X X
newsletter
E-mail X X X
Forum X X
e-mails list X X
Live Meeting
Instant messaging X X
Microsoft X X X
SharePoint
Teleconferencing X X X
Videoconferencing X X
Private micro X X
blogging network
CoP Microsoft Testers Requirements
Tools
CoP Blog
Corporative Blog X
Company
newsletter
E-mail X X X
Forum
e-mails list
Live Meeting X
Instant messaging
Microsoft X X X
SharePoint
Teleconferencing X X X
Videoconferencing
Private micro X
blogging network
Table 5--Knowledge Creation and Sharing
CoP Means and Participants Knowledge
Agile Methods E-mail, Instant messaging: core team Low creation
Meetings: core team Low sharing
Training: core team and peripheral Low creation
members
Private micro-blogging network: core High sharing
team, peripheral members and employees
Meetings (problem solving): core team
and employees
- High creation
Low sharing
- High creation
High sharing
Project E-mail, Instant messaging: core team Low creation
Management Meetings: core team Low sharing
Training: core team and peripheral Low creation
members
Lessons learned: core team, peripheral High sharing
members and employees
Meetings: core team and external
- High creation
Low sharing
- High creation
High sharing
Java E-mail, Instant messaging: core team Low creation
Meetings: core team Low sharing
Training: core team, peripheral Low creation
members and employees
Meetings: core team and peripheral High sharing
members
Company newsletter: core team,
peripheral members and employees
- High creation
Low sharing
- High creation
High sharing
Microsoft E-mail, Instant messaging: core team Low creation
Meetings: core team Low sharing
- Low creation
High sharing
- High creation
Low sharing
Brainstorming sessions: core team High creation
High sharing
Testers Meetings: core team and peripheral Low creation
members
E-mail, Instant messaging: core team Low sharing
Corporate blog, Private micro-blogging Low creation
network, Company newsletter: core
team, members and employees
Events: core team, peripheral members High sharing
and employees
- High creation
Low sharing
- High creation
High sharing
Requirements Meetings: core team and members Low creation
Low sharing
- Low creation
High sharing
- High creation
Low sharing
- High creation
High sharing
