Communities of Practice: Social Structures for

the Development of Knowledge

France Henri, Ph. D.LICEF Research Center

Télé-université Université du Québec à Montréal

PALETTE’S Kick off Meeting Lausanne, March 13-15 2006

Presentation Outline

• Concept of Virtual Community

• 4 Types of Communities

• Importance of CoPs within Organizations

• CoP Model (Wenger, Mc Dermott & Snyder, 2002)

• Design and Life Cycle of a CoP

Virtual Community

An Emerging Concept

• a virtual group that communicates via Internet• a structured social network driven by common goals

that shares a cyberspace• a cyberspace with common areas where community

life and interactions occur • a cyberspace settlement involving community

activities, artefacts, individual creations, common realizations, etc.

Virtual Community

Grasping its Activity

Three Basic Proposals from Wenger’s Social Learning Theory (1998)

• Community activities are described in terms of participation, socialisation and development of identity

• Learning and Doing form a unique concept: members’ participation triggers learning and understanding

• Learning is the process of participating, negotiating meaning and constructing one’s identity

Types of Virtual Communities

• Communities carry out distinct activities and select various modes of participation which result in different types of learning

• Virtual communities are defined according to:– their goal (initial intention)– their level of unity (strength of the social link)– the evolution of goals and modes of association

over time

Types of Virtual Communities

Community of Learners

Intentionality and Goal

Community of Practice

Intelligent Community of Interest

Community of Interest

Various Types of Virtual Communities According to their Emerging Context

Group

Stre

ngh

t of

the

Soc

ial L

ink

Gathering

Types of Virtual Communities

• Although all virtual communities target a certain type of learning, they cannot be amalgamated

• The activities, the modes of participation, the types of production and consequently, the learning itself, differ from one virtual communities to another

Importance of CoPs within Organizations

CoPs are an essential ingredient for success in the knowledge economy

• They can help deal with rapid changes

• They can be responsible for knowledge development and sharing and managing the knowledge produced by workers

• Known to produce knowledge, they are part of the strategy to gain productivity

• They are a source of motivation for the workforce by making them responsible for developing practical and instantly applicable knowledge

Importance of CoPs within Organizations

CoPs are an essential ingredient for success in the knowledge economy

• They could be considered as an economical solution that banks on cooperation and collaboration: – costs reduction for support and immersion of new

employees– promote self-learning through participation

• Traditional training seems obsolete; it is no longer considered a means to produce context adapted knowledge

CoP Model: a Social Structure for Knowledge

Three basic components:

• a domain

• a community

• a shared practice

CoP Model: a Social Structure for Knowledge

The Domain of Knowledge • The CoP domain differs from the field/profession• It addresses a series of issues, challenges and

problems encountered in the field by a community who decides to tackle such elements

• It is the focus and raison d’être of the community; it defines its identity

• The domain evolves over the life span of the community in response to new, emerging challenges and issues

CoP Model: a Social Structure for Knowledge

The Community Group of people who care about their domain and fell

concerned by issues they face• Participation is voluntary and takes various forms

depending on members’ level of interest: a desire...– for the domain to develop and to contribute– to interact with peers to share what they feel is

important about it– to make a significant contribution knowing that it will

be appreciated– to simply expand their knowledge by learning about the

practice

CoP Model: a Social Structure for Knowledge

The Community

• Is bounded by relationships based on reciprocity, confidence and flexibility

• Its members can manage conflicts and turn them into productive events

• It could be of various size

CoP Model: a Social Structure for Knowledge

Communities: Populations of Various Sizes

~ 15 an intimate community15-50 a medium-sized community: favours numerous

flexible relationships50-100 a large community: likely to split into subgroups

(according to different topics or geographical areas)

> 100 a very large community: subgroups develop local identities; members are very involved locally but they retain a sense of belonging to the larger community

CoP Model: a Social Structure for Knowledge

A Shared Practice• is developed by the members of the community in

order to increase day-to-day efficiency• includes:

– the history of the community; the knowledge it has developed

– a set of socially selected methods and common approaches to carry out the activities of a specific domain

– common standards to direct actions, communication, problem-solving, performance and responsibilities

CoP Model: a Social Structure for Knowledge

A shared practice includes• a corpus of various types of empirical, theoretical and

procedural knowledge, both explicit and tacit• a framework of references, models, principles• acquired knowledge, best practices, heuristics • Tools, documents and other artefacts that reflect

knowledge

Not all practices are shared and produce a CoP

Communities and practice are linked to a specific type of social structure which is driven by specific goals and purposes

Types of CoPs

Strategic vs Spontaneous Communities

Strategic types according to purposes

1. help and assistance communities

2. communities of best practices

3. communities dedicated to knowledge management and knowledge-stewarding

4. communities of innovation

CoP Design

• Design: – to spark interest; not to create a rigid structure– to allow the community to express its personality,

energy and main purpose

• The Community Design Paradox: – design is used to anticipate, plan and organize– design fails to anticipate and plan natural, spontaneous

or self-directed components

• Rather than focus on planning every single detail, design must strive to stimulate active participation

Life Cycle of a CoP

Life Cycle of a CoP: a Five-Step Process– Potential

– Coalescing

– Collective maturing

– Stewardship

– Transformation or death

Life Cycle of a CoP

Step 1: Community PotentialInitial design: align important issues in terms of who? what?

value? roles? output?• Determine the scope of the domain • Identify common needs of knowledge • Determine the purpose of the CoP: help, exemplary

practices, intendancy, knowledge management, innovation• Select coordinator and leaders• Interview potential members

Life Cycle of a CoP

Step 2: Coalescing• Establish the value of sharing knowledge about the

domain

• Identify practice knowledge to be shared and how it will be done

• Develop confidence and strengthen relationships between members

• Create links among core members: at this point, this is more important than developing peripheral participation

Life Cycle of a CoP

Step 3: Collective Maturing • The community defines its role in the organization

and its relationships with other domains

• It is no longer simply a network of professional friends

• It must manage its growth and ensure that it is not distracted from its purpose

• Must remain up-to-date and address real issues (bureaucratization hazard)

Life Cycle of a CoP

Step 3: Collective Maturing • Measure and manage creation of value • Manage the knowledge system

– collect anecdotes; document, share and broadcast knowledge

• Develop and provide community support– allocate time to participate actively, ex. trips to meet

members and attend events – develop financial model: funding for projects and

infrastructure

Life Cycle of a CoP

Step 4: Stewardship• Respond to the challenge of survival

• Overcome a lack of energy

• Avoid closing and stagnation in a well established field

• Monitor resourcing

• Recruit new members, a new core

• Develop new leadership

Life Cycle of a CoP

Step 5: Transformation or Death• Risks:

– loss of energy– community becomes a social club– members migrate to other communities– institutionalization of the community

• Redefine, update, transform, keep up…

• …or die!

Summary

Emerging Conditions• A core • Leading, coordinating• Consult members to determine CoP purpose• Legitimate, relevant, creation of value

– awareness of CoP input and output

• A community design that fits its size• Programmed activities and events• Provide support: time and means