©[email protected] 1 knowledge networking ------ structure and performance in networks of...
TRANSCRIPT
Knowledge Networking------
Structure and Performance in Networks of Practice
Ek. dr. Robin TeiglandFenix, Stockholm School of Economics
[email protected], www.teigland.comJanuary 2004
Today’s presentation
• What is a community of practice?
• Extending communities of practice into the virtual world: Electronic networks of practice
• Performance and management challenges
Externalelectronicnetworks
Internet
Firmboundary
Non-electronicdocuments
Othercontacts
Where do individuals go for help in solving problems?
Co-located colleagues
Intranet
Non-electronicdocuments
Internalelectronicnetworks
Contacts inother offices
Communities of practice are natural, emergent structures
• Whenever we are engaged in doing something together over time...– we negotiate an understanding of what we are doing– we establish ways of doing it and talking about it– we develop social relationships with each other
• We form communities of practice
….communities of practice are everywhere
Some examples of communities of practice
• Technicians repairing copy machines• Consultants specializing in strategic marketing in the
fast-moving consumer goods industry• C++ programmers developing internet solutions in
the financial services industry• Automobile employees from different functions
working on brake systems• Scientists working on a cure for cancer• Programmers, art directors, etc. developing leading
edge B2B internet solutions
What is a community of practice?
• An emergent group of individuals who form around a shared practice– Spend time together doing, thinking, talking, telling stories– Mutually engage to help each other solve problems– Share ideas, insights, information, knowledge – Learn together and develop common knowledge
• Whose members are contextually bound to one another (community)– Over time establish a shared history through typically close, face-to-face
interactions– Develop a shared identity, common language, norms of behavior– Jointly determine roles and relationships
• And steward knowledge– Develop practice knowledge– Innovate around their practice
Communities of practice are not teams
Teams• ...by deliverables
• Shared goals and results• Value defined by management
• …by task• Interdependent tasks• Clear boundaries
• …by workplan• Assigned participation• Everyone contributes• Managed by goals & plan
• …by commitment• Joint accountability for tasks• Based on explicit agreement• Team leader or manager
Communities of practice • …by value
• Shared domain of practice• Value discovered / evolves
• …by knowledge• Interdependent knowledge• Permeable boundaries
• … organically• Jointly determined participation• Variable contributions • Self-organizing
• … by identity• Reciprocal contributions • Based on trust• Core group
Driven…
Defined
Develop
Bound
Where are communities of practice in organizations?
Formal structure Informal structure
Where are communities of practice in organizations?
• Within projects and business units
• Across projects and business units
• Across distinct organizations
What is the value of communities of practice to organizations?
• Short term: Improved performance and enhanced capabilities• Solve problems• Share information and knowledge• Reuse solutions and coordinate actions• Improve quality
• Long term: Learning potential• Create new connections across organization • Develop new ideas at the boundaries between practices• Bring in new knowledge from outside the organization
• Organizations supporting communities of practice • Hewlett-Packard • DaimlerChrysler• McKinsey & Co.• Xerox
• British Petroleum• Ericsson Research Canada• CapGemini Ernst&Young• IBM
What is a community of practice?
• An emergent group of individuals who form around a shared practice and whose members are contextually bound to one another through mutual engagement in typically close face-to-face interactions
Today’s presentation
• What is a community of practice?
• Extending communities of practice into the virtual world: Electronic networks of practice– Characteristics– Case study
• Performance and management challenges
Electronic networks of practice
How can IT be utilized to replicate traditional
communities of practice online such that knowledge sharing can occur regardless of time
and space?
What are electronic networks of practice?
• Self-organizing, open activity systems focused on a shared practice that exist through computer-mediated communication
• Examples– Format: Newsgroups, listservs, bulletin boards– Topics: C++ programming, SPSS, radiology,
aeronautics, law, etc.
Distinguishing characteristics of electronic networks of practice
• Participation is voluntary and self-organizing– Choose participation level - from simple observation (lurking) to
active participation - and what knowledge to disclose
• Open to anyone interested in the practice – Regardless of physical location, demographics, organizational
affiliation, or social position, so typically strangers
• Focused on a shared practice – Mutually engage through posting questions and answers, reach out
to others who then provide valuable knowledge and insight in response
• Exist only in electronic space – Knowledge exchanged through asynchronous, text-based computer-
mediated communication – No physical restriction on membership so can involve thousands of
diverse individuals across the globe– Exchanges recorded through archiving of posted messages
How do communities of practice and electronic networks of practice differ?
Community of practiceCommunity of practice Electronic network of practiceElectronic network of practice
Primary communication Primary communication channelchannel
Typically face-to-face, one-to-one, one-to-few
Computer-mediated, threaded messages, one-to-all
MembershipMembership Restricted and limited, bounded by personal relationships and communication channel
Open and unlimited, based on interest in practice, typically strangers
Nature of interactionNature of interaction Jointly determined, visible social and status cues, high restraint on behavior
Individually determined, filtered social and status cues, low restraint on behavior
IdentityIdentity High degree of shared identity, language, norms, values
Low degree of shared identity, language, norms, values
Why do people take time to help “strangers” in electronic networks of practice?
• What sustains the flow of messages?
• Why do individuals contribute if they are better off free-riding on the efforts of others?
Applying theories of social dilemmas, collective action, and public goods
• Social dilemma– Individuals act rationally in self-interest, yet sum of
their actions leads to collective irrationality (Kollock 1998)
• Provision of public goods dilemma– Public goods: Resources from which all may benefit
whether or not have contributed to providing the good (Samuelson 1954, Olson 1965)
– Optimal individual decision: Enjoy public good without contributing
Public ParkVancouver, BC
Researching collective action in electronic networks of practice
• Build upon work by Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, Monge, & Ryan (1996) that extended social dilemma and collective action theories to ICTs
• Social dilemma = Overarching research question– How are open, voluntary ENOPs sustained, given that
individuals are better off not contributing and free-riding on the efforts of others?
• Collective = ENOP• Public good = ENOP knowledge
– Non-excludable– Non-rival
1) What is the pattern of contribution that produces and sustains the ENOP public good?
2) Are ENOPs characterized by a critical mass constituting a “core”?
3) How does the heterogeneity of resources and interests of participants impact ENOP collective action?
Three exploratory research questions
Research setting and methods
• Setting: US professional legal association– More than 7000 members from multiple organizations– Association acts as knowledge broker and maintains secure, interactive website – One ENOP with bulletin board design, resembling conversation
• Methods– Collection of all messages posted in April & May 2001
• Total of 2460 messages posted by 526 unique individuals– Questionnaire
• 176 valid survey responses, 29% response rate• Participation rates of respondents not significantly different from non-respondents (F
= .823, n.s.)
– Analysis• Social network analysis• Factor analysis and correlations
RQ1: What is the pattern of contribution that produces and sustains the ENOP public good?
Contribution = posting of questions and replies that take the form of a conversation
A) Collective action theory• Dense structure – Everyone responds equally
(Marwell et al. 1988)
• Dyadic exchange – Reciprocity between help seeker and help provider (Kollock 1999)
B) Extension of collective action theory to ICTs
• Generalized exchange – Help providing reciprocated by third party (Fulk et al. 1996, Ekeh 1974 )
RQ1 results: Pattern of contribution is characterized by generalized exchange
• Approx. 75% of individuals posted less than average number of 4.7 messages per person
• 90% of exchanges were not directly reciprocal, thus only 10% of exchanges were directly reciprocal
• ENOP is sustained through • Unequal participation in provision of public
good• Generalized exchange between members
RQ2: Are ENOPs characterized by a critical mass constituting a “core”?
A) Provision of public goods theory– Critical mass: A subset of the group is responsible for majority of contributions to
provision of public good (Oliver et al. 1988)
B) Community of practice theory– Core: A COP exhibits a core/periphery structure, i.e., has central group of insiders tied to
each other to whom peripheral members are connected (Wenger 1998; Schenkel, Teigland & Borgatti 2002)
RQ2 results: There is one connected component with a critical mass, but no core/periphery structure
•Social network analysis tests • One connected component -> no cliques• Low core/periphery score of 0.27 -> critical mass of insiders not highly tied to each other but to peripherals
RQ3: How does the heterogeneity of resources and interests of participants impact ENOP collective action?
• Provision of public goods theory
– The more heterogeneous a group is, the more likely there is a critical mass with a high enough level of resources and/or interests to produce the public good for the collective (Oliver et al. 1985)
• Interests– Lack of private alternatives (Hardin 1982)– Social and private motivations (Wasko et al. 2000)
• Resources– Money, time, expertise, energy, and influence (Oliver et
al. 1985)
RQ3 results: This ENOP has a high degree of heterogeneity of resources and interests
• Interests– Professional motivation
• Professional reputation
• Professional desire to learn and challenge oneself
– Social motivation • Sustainability of participation
– Private alternatives• Size of law firm
• Resources– Expertise
• ENOP expertise: Length of professional association membership
• Professional expertise: Self-rating
Received help
YesYes
YesYes
YesYes
YesYes
YesYes
YesYes
Provided help
Summary: ENOPs can be seen as form of collective action whose public good is knowledge
• ENOP structured as star– Generalized exchange
produces public good– Critical mass exists within
connected component– No ”core/periphery” structure– Group of outsiders who lurk or
ask but never receive response
• Heterogeneity provided good indications of why people contributed to provision of public good
Implications
• ENOPs do not need equal member participation, but can be sustained through critical mass and generalized exchange
• Critical mass can be developed....– Through ability to enhance individual reputations in the network, thus
technology that supports identifiers of individuals will more likely succeed than systems where participation is anonymous
– Through ability to attract tenured experts in their area but who do not have easy access to interested others
• ENOP structure differs from COP structure– No core/periphery structure– Generalized, not dyadic, exchange– Group of outsiders
Today’s presentation
• What is a community of practice?
• Extending communities of practice into the virtual world: Electronic networks of practice
• Performance and management challenges
Networks of practice and individual performance at Cap Gemini
A high degree of individual participation in the Cap Gemini Nordic electronic network
of practice for programmers
Higher degree of knowledge acquisition
and creativity
Networks of practice and individual performance at Cap Gemini
But a high degree of reliance on colleague programmers in local
communities of practice
A lower degree of creativity
Participation in external electronic networks of practice
Socialization with community of practice members outside of work
Creative performance
+
+
At Icon Medialab, creativity was found to be related to participation in internal and external communities.
Creative performance
On-timeperformance
–
But participation in external ENOPs was also related to poor on-time performance.
Participation in external electronic networks of practice
Socialization with community of practice members outside of work
+
+
An unwritten code of conduct encourages reciprocity and thus knowledge leakage through external ENOPs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Internaltrading
Externaltrading
Frequency Once
every
two w
eeks
Once every
month Some individuals traded several
times a day!
Is knowledge trading good or bad for a firm?
We pass over the nondisclosure
agreements of different companies and trade company secrets all
the time.
Summary
• What is a community of practice?
• Extending communities of practice into the virtual world: What are electronic networks of practice?
• Performance and management challenges
Necessary to differentiate between COPs and ENOPs
COPs and NOPS differ on a number of dimensions
Community of practiceCommunity of practice Electronic network of practiceElectronic network of practice
Primary comm. Primary comm. channelchannel
Typically face-to-face, one-to-one, one-to-few
Computer-mediated, threaded messages, one-to-all
MembershipMembership Restricted, bounded by personal relationships and communication channel
Open, based on shared interest in practice, unlimited, typically strangers
Nature of Nature of interactioninteraction
Jointly determined, visible social and status cues, high restraint on behavior
Individually determined, filtered social and status cues, low restraint on behavior
IdentityIdentity High level of shared identity, language, norms, values
Low level of shared identity, language, norms, values
Knowledge Knowledge Private good, high level of tacitness, highly redundant
Public good, low level of tacitness, highly nonredundant
StructureStructure Core individuals tied to one another, direct reciprocity
Critical mass not tied to one another, generalized reciprocity
Performance Performance Higher level of efficiency, lower level of creativity
Lower level of efficiency, higher level of creativity
Networks of practice of any kind cannot be “managed”
• You cannot force a plant to grow by pulling its leaves
• You can, however, create the conditions for it to grow