Blog entry: “Communities of Practice: Going One Step Too Far?
http://www.aim2004.int-evry.fr/pdf/Aim04_Kimble_Hildreth.pdf
July 23, 2004

Kimble and Hildreth ask an insightful question: “Can a CoP ever be truly virtual?” Their focus is largely directed toward the business world which hoped to achieve productivity gains, less costly training, and an increased ROI from utilizing these informal but knowledge-rich “communities” that formed ad hoc within an office environment.

As the concept of “learning object” emerged from the world of object-oriented programming, so Communities of Practice (CoPs) emerged in the late 1990s from the world of business, often as an offshoot of knowledge management projects. The first KM projects, as is widely acknowledged in the literature, had been so technology-centric that when they failed to produce the expected results, the initiators of many KM projects turned back to the drawing board to try to decipher why this great idea had failed to have an impact on business.

Information studies had already identified tacit and explicit forms of “knowledge” or “information,” and building on that concept seemed to move the discussion forward effectively. Explicit (hard) knowledge was captured, codified, and stored – which the technology made readily possible. Tacit (soft) knowledge then emerged as implicit, fluid, unstructured, and heavily dependent on informal networks of people. The “water cooler” group?

In addition to the tension between hard and soft knowledge, another tension emerged as CoPs found their way into KM projects. These KM projects had been developed within a formal business organization and were always intended to focus on the mission of the company and its bottom line. Dynamic CoPs, on the other hand, seemed self-perpetuating and self-directed. These characteristics made them rich but also made them difficult to co-opt.

To further their analysis, the authors quote Wenger (1998) and use his definition of the parameters of a CoP:

What it is about: “The focus of the CoP is a particular area of activity or body of knowledge around which it has organized itself.”

How it functions: “people become members of a CoP through shared practices and they are linked to each other through their involvement in common activities.”

What it produces: “The members of a CoP build up a “shared repertoire” of communal resources over time.”

Because of the tension between the nature of a formal business environment and the fluid, social, personal nature of a CoP, the following four processes are possible:
1. CoP drifts into non-existence
2. Redefine themselves
3. Merge with another CoP
4. Become a formal organizational unite

I very much like the idea that the “capricious” nature of a true CoP makes it very difficult for business to co-opt but on the other hand, this same capriciousness makes it a challenge to incorporate the potential riches of individual members in a virtual community of practice.

I know that the participants in the Learning Objects Virtual Community of Practice (LOVCOP) have enormous riches in their minds, their philosophies, their practice, their research, and their presentations. But how to capture that wealth within the framework of an artificial VcoP is a daunting question.


  ¶ 10:24 AM