design drivers

Wallace and Saint-Onge discuss a two phase approach to setting up a CoP.
Phase 1

A limited number of people design and set up using these guidelines

• Define the Community Project



• Establishing Community Components



• Launch the community

The community requires:

'Governance—the structures needed to guide policy and process development and to make decisions about the community's purpose, directions, and approaches

Membership—the selection criteria and invitation process

Technology Infrastructure—the application chosen to support community development and knowledge sharing; the collaborative tool used to support the virtual community

User Support—the help desk issues and solutions needed to ensure access to the community and usability of the application

Content—the personal data for member profiles and seed content that will populate the community at launch and during the initial community development stages

Education—the materials and resources to familiarize community members with accessing and using the application

Facilitation—the moderator, guide, cheerleader, and traffic cop who ensure the smooth exchange of ideas, nurture community building, and provide liaison with stakeholders and the application vendor

Communications—the public relations activities to promote the use of the community as well as to keep sponsors, senior management, community members, and Clarica members informed of the community's development process'(Wallace & Saint Onge, 2003).

Phase 2 Community Implementation and Growth

• Establish the Community






• Assess Community Progress and Value.






• Grow the community






• Evaluate Purpose and Direction






• Expand the community

The authors end with
'communities are no longer a tool to deal with a specific challenge in a particular area or

discipline; they become an integral element of a high-performance organization's fabric.'

Although slightly a 'cook-book approach to setting up CoP, this article provides a realistic approach and underlines the multiple roles for people. It however becomes difficult to differentiate from a project team or working team approach.

People are the ultimate drivers. There will be a time when an expert will not wish to provide knowledge for a specific issue. There must be a boundary between which memes belong to the expert and which ones are owned by the company. This boundary is flexible and varies with the employee, employer , knowledge and area of expertise. Some people are legally bound to not divulge trade secrets and client information from previous employees. Giving information that will be used to do wrong things or counter to a persons ethical stance should set up resistances as discussed in the paper looking at setting ethical standards for anthropologists working with the U.S.Army.

The traditional knowledge worker (KW) is internally motivated and will not respond to external rewards in predictable fashion. This KW is more likely to change jobs every five years to keep learning and stimulating ideas, furthering career. Loyalty is a throw away commodity for the KW and its employer. Ownership and rewards need to be carefully considered in such an environment. Few managers understand personality factors, interpersonal transactions, unconscious motivators, defense mechanisms or the influence of external factors within a systems theory. Allowing people to select their own participants will allow for interpersonal connectivity and intuition. Pre-selecting people based on their academic or achievement profile is asking for trouble unless a short-lived project team is what is required.

List of references

Panel Releases Report on Anthropologists' Work With the Military, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved 30/11/2007 http://chronicle.com/news/index.phpid=3512&utm_source=at&um_medium=en&commented=1#c007627

Wallace, D. & Saint-Onge, H.,(2003) Leveraging Communities of Practice , Retrieved 30/11/2007
http://www.intranetstoday.com/Articles/Default2.aspx?ArticleID=5499&AuthorID=145

Human passions

This brief article, Law #4, of knowledge management underlines the human factor of passion as the driver for communities of practice. The point is clearly made that top down CoPs are short lived. Workplaces can provide time and space, (and money) for the head as well as the heart to maximise CoP development. This is reflected in the emotional intelligence of leadership style of business management.
This is possible why chat, social presence, personal connectivity and nettique are so important in developing online learning communities


Pommier,M., Shneier, L. & Denning, S., ( Passion is driver for communities of practice. Knowledge Management Retrieved 30/11/2007
http://www.stevedenning.com/passion_communities_practice.html

People are drivers

'Remember that the people and processes, not IT, need to drive your communities of practice. IT tools should enable easier, more effective sharing.'

(American Productivity & Quality Center 2002).

This really sums up my position, although the book is issued in 2002 and thus somewhat dated.

This book section also states that face to face meetings, virtual chat rooms and building personal connectivity are the important cultural drivers of CoP's. This class, this Blog, the virtual CoP we are currently using, has no face to face meetings, but we have a domain a praxis and a community. We have supportive technology although some members have found the platforms somewhat limiting.

The paper also discusses content management, meta-data, tags, key words, abstracts for codification and retrieval of information. It suggests that this task needs early intervention i the CoP life-cycle as it quickly gets out of hand.

One can already see in an asynchronous discussion board that despite some categories, the large number of posts and information, it becomes overwhelming, repetitious, hard to data-mine and creates an disengagement. A blackboard, group concept map, wiki or even this blog are Web 2.0 technologies that assist in the content management.

Given that our CoP is only functional for about three months, the time limit is very different to an expanding and growing CoP with a life-cycle to consider.

Given that by definition , the CoP is about praxis to much knowledge and not enough praxis, will make a messy and useless CoP.

Reference

American Productivity & Quality Center, (2002). Landmark Seven - Information Technology and Content Management
Communities of Practice: A Guide for Your Journey to Knowledge Management Best Practices

retrieved 26/11/2007, USQ catalogue, electronic version http://library.books24x7.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/book/id_8748/viewer.asp?bookid=8748&chunkid=0884360760

Web 3.0?

Technology drives community learning as it is developing so rapidly that there is a lagtime, or so this article states ( Boulos & Wheeler, 2007).

'Not since the invention of the Web and its subsequent development as a multimedia platform have we seen such an exciting array of emerging technologies, yet to date relatively few health care organizations have taken up the tools and strategic advantages offered by Web 2.0.'

RSS feeds, Blogs, Wikis, podcasting, tags, gaming etc provide the platform for the Web 2.0 and dare we say it Web 3.0 connectivity and global communities of practice.

The authors state that

'There are several instances of amateur knowledge surpassing professional, when the right kind of systems and tools are available. '

which I think we could debate.

There is certainly the possibility of groupthink bias. Investing written word with truth and poor analysis of research and opinion can lead to 'dumbing down'.

I see in my particular field, psychiatry, major flaws in this approach. Government has seen the economic rationalism of 'dumbing down' as a way of reducing health costs. It now prefers to use less educated, unqualified , community funded organisations to treat mental illness, than doctors. This helps it overcome the poor planning and shortfall of doctors in the country. It overcomes the fact that overseas trained doctors that it poaches from poorer nations, lack adequate psychiatry training and have language problems. The governments also see the value in terms of vote buying.

We also see online support groups. These are unmonitored and extremely powerful. Online groups for anorexia nervosa is a way that sufferers share their tips for losing weight and promote illness rather than health.

The same process can be seen for university academics promoting critical thinking and research analysis towards higher levels of knowledge. As they are locked away in ivory towers, grass roots information webs advance. Wikipedia becomes the most important reference.

Thus 'experts' have an important role in global connectivity. In my particular field, websites, blogs, wikis are the growing revolution to connecting with patients, governments and health organisations. Expertise in these areas is however slow. An anti- authoritarian philosophy may prove costly in the long run.

Joyce Arnold

References

Boulos, M. N. K., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2-23. retrieved Ebscohost, University of Southern Queensland library

Global CoP

Globalised net-architecture.

I think that this slideshare is interesting (Kirkwood).

• It has relevant information about the drivers towards Communities of Practice including technology and Web 2.0.


• It makes good use of concept mapping.


• It also shows the process of Web 2.0, that is open courseware, creative commons, sharing and connectivity.


• There are no issues about royalties, copyright, plagiarism or ownership to contend with.


• The community of practice here however is globalised. There are few boundaries. There are places to add comment for connectivity.

Is this the direction that CoP is driving Web2.0 technology?
Although there are always the early adopters of technology, Web 2.0 has now become mainstream in many countries and social groups.





Kirkwood, K (nd) If they build it they will come, creating opportunities for E-learning Communities of Practice, Slideshare. Retrieved 23/11/2007 http://www.slideshare.net/sitkasitchensis/if-they-build-it-they-will-come

People driving technology

This blog discusses a conference that proposes to plan how Web 2.0 can be used to drive Communities of Practice.

Although CP Square proposed that non-members could join, it missed the point that if you set barriers, fees, and lock knowledge away, it becomes irrelevant. Social connectivity towards knowledge construction is the cornerstone of both Communities of Practice and Web 2.0

The proposed questions are interesting ones for us to debate.

Are there boundaries?

How can we build trust without boundaries?

Boundaries could be seen as less dichotomous than in the past. Feminist philosophy values diversity, not homogeneity. A loose boundary allows free flow of information and networking in across the boundary of the CoP. Defining the issues produces boundaries not artificial containers of people. Cross organisational networks and CoPs indicate the value in breaking down boundaries. Trust and security, socially responsible behaviour and ownership are the mainstays of social boundaries.

The Mormon philosophy of silent witness provides a clue. If all communication in a CoP and using Web 2.0 is visible, then the power of the silent witness occurs. The power of the grapevine communication, social networking, keeps people trustworthy.

I believe that moral and ethical education is paramount towards this new social revolution, not only to understand the processes for self but also identify with critical evaluation the wrong information and non-trustworthy connections. There is still too great a power invested in corporations to manipulate the Web and political propaganda to manipulate people.

I predict that corporations and global enterprises will decline, they are already disintegrating. I predict that oppressive political systems will decline.We are already seeing regimes dismantle, communism collapsing, the Berlin Wall fall, people power stopping McDonald's and shopping complexes being built in communities and Nike having to change its production philosophy due to people power.

I predict that the local small businesses will flourish and they are dependent upon trust.

They live in the community and are dependent upon it. They will serve rather than dominate people.

White, N (2006) Web 2.0 and Communities of Practice: What gives? Retrieved 23/11/2007 from http://www.fullcirc.com/weblog/2005/12/web-20-and-communities-of-practice.htm

Web 2.0- a driver? or an enabler?

Downes summarises the parallel development of E-learning and Web 2.0. Although the technology seems to be the driver, could I suggest that it is the enabler. People and social connectivity have formed communities of practice. Alternatively, both drivers were needed to create this newest revolution in learning.

Which do you think is the most important- the technology or the social groups?

Technology is now able to do what people always did, connect and communicate, but more efficiently and globally. Information is now micro-formatted allowing people to share, remix and network. Downes calls this a social revolution. I don't think the revolution is driven by technology but inevitable as a response to world history. It is the natural response, started in the 1970's, to fascism, industrialism and political systems. Liberty was the important value in the post-war period. The social/socialist revolution questions authority; values a diversity of opinion and sees power in grass roots movements. The feminist revolution, anti-Vietnam lobby, green lobby for environmentalism and Indigenous rights are some of the results of the social networking revolution.

People are driving changes to work an learning because they can easily maintain CoPs from home. As Prime Minister Rudd implied in his electioneering, the Information Superhighway is the important communication tool, just as building highways and rail systems were at the turn of the century. This is reflected in Green philosophy, Think Global- Act Local.

Reference:

Downes, S (nd) E-Learning-2.0, E-Learning Magazine Education and Learning in Perspective Retrieved 23/11/2007 from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

Please join in

Welcome to this Blog.

Over the next few weeks I will post comments and reflections on a number of resources concerning Communities of Practice, specifically looking at the drivers for their re(emergence).

Please feel free to add and comment as your contributions are what will make it worthwhile.

In my opinion, one of the most important drivers has been technology and the connectivity of the Internet. Humans are now free to do what they do best, leaving the mundane tasks to technology.

Social interaction (social capital) has been made even easier using Web 2.0, the semantic web, technology. This blog is an early example of technology driven connectivity. It is not static and can only be of use if it is accessed by and enhanced by other people.

People and their thirst for knowledge are the most important drivers of CoPs. They created CoPs before computer technology existed and they create the technology to advance communication an connectivity. A knowledge based CoP drives competitive advantage for survival of the fittest. It also values people, of every competency, as the owners of tacit knowledge changing the focus from an Industrial era of men 'as machines' to people valued for their diversity and intelligence.

Smith raises the issue that Lavers and Wenger are using this bottom-up model of Communities of Practice rather than the previous Knowledge Management, top -down model.

For debate- why do we then talk about trying to manage a CoP - surely this is the antithesis of a CoP?

Smith, M. K. (Ed.) (2003) Communities of Practice. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved on 15/11/2007

www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.