Group items tagged

Very interesting blog post by David Griffiths, July 4, 2012. It's interesting because he took the release of an analysis of American Intelligence in Afghanistan and used it to surface issues in online CoPs. Excerpts: "What I find interesting is that I have had very few conversations where organisations have described their need for CoP to be driven by a need to become more dynamic, agile or adaptive - a major concern for organisations today ..." "Many CoP are far too large, much like a sprawling metropolis, it is difficult to find the boundary for the community; this results in low levels of trust and sub communities that create their own 'neighborhoods' with interesting sub cultures. Others are devoid of purpose, well intentioned in their conception, but reduced to a shell, tumbleweed blowing down dried up knowledge flows; a creaking sign blows back and forth over the community portal:" "This CoP was presented as a panacea for problem solving, but it was built upon community leaders who were chosen by the organisation for their high level of expertise, which in this case also meant they had been with the organisation for a long period of time. I was left to wonder whether this was a community at all, or whether it was just a problem solving network. I asked how they surfaced new ideas, how they encouraged variety, how they used signals from the front line to make wider strategic or operational decisions? Did they use the community to monitor the type/nature of problems that were emerging and how community leaders were responding? Were the problems signalling disturbances in the environment that required a strategic response?" "The lesson to be learned for those operating CoP in organisations is to by all means use community 'leaders', but use them not as community police, or regulators, but as catalysts to surface relevant intelligence for the organisation. I would argue that you will start looking for different types of people, with differe

Blog-post by Jenny Mackness, June 2011, summarizing key points from Etienne Wenger's address "Communities of practice CoPs have implications for organisations as they might be working under the radar of vertical accountability of the organisation (working on a horizontal dimension) Communities of practice cannot be built. Only members can build communities. But they can be enabled. A CoP is a learning partnership. A group may or may not be a learning partnership. A team is not usually a community of practice. A CoP is a vehicle by which an organisation can place its strategic development in the hands of the practitioners. A classroom is not a CoP. It is instructional design. Knowledge and learning Knowledge is power. Learning is a claim to competence. Learning is power in both directions. Learning is its own enemy. The paradox is that learning gives you power, but that power also limits your learning. Power and knowledge are always part of the equation. Learning is achieving a state of knowledgeability. The view of curriculum in institutions is 'to fill it up'. CoP theory view of curriculum is that learning has to follow construction of meaning, not precede it."

Redo of Wenger's schema on cops and levels of membership

Amazing paper by the Berkana Institute on how networks serve as incubators for CoPs, leaders, new ideas and ways of doing to emerge. It makes me think about leadership training programs vs. networks/forums for growing leadership in the collective. This aspect of emergence has profound implications for social entrepreneurs. Instead of developing them individually as leaders and skillful practitioners, we would do better to connect them to like-minded others and create the conditions for emergence. The skills and capacities needed by them will be found in the system that emerges, not in better training programs.

First article in two part series between Adam Grant, Wharton professor, and Carla O'Dell, CEO of AQPC, April 18, 2014 on how CoPs and corporations should support and reward give and take behaviors by employees. Also wonder how gender plays into this dilemma...when we see the majority of discussants in CPsquare are women (because they are the majority of CPsquare members? And why might that be true?), what does that signal for whether they are givers or takers?

A resource published by Eileen Ferrance on Action Research at the LAB (Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory) at Brown University on Action Research, 2000 Brown University copyright, all rights reserved What is intriguing to me about this report is that the action research mirrors what I think should happen in a CoP, i.e., a group of people identify a common need from practice, they gather data, they interpret the data, they act on the evidence in their own practice, evaluate results, and redefine the next learning quest.

website for Knowledge Communities. Look at this mission: Knowledge Communities trains community facilitators how to tap into the intrinsic motivation of individuals and groups to move a community or network forward toward more autonomy, productivity and sustainability. The outcome we aim for is improved practice. Over time, network members take over the role the paid facilitator has played, requiring fewer external resource to produce greater results. To learn more about our projects see our white papers.

Fascinating interview between Adam Grant, tenured professor at the Wharton School and Carla O'Dell on how to facilitate sharing knowledge in KM communities, April 25, 2014. Explains how to control giving too much counsel/mentoring/assistance and expecting others to pay it forward instead of always asking for help.