Knowledge sharing between communities of practice

(1)

Knowledge sharing between Communities of

Practice

Master Thesis

University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business Master Business Studies – Strategy Track

Thesis supervisor: Dr. Jeroen Kraaijenbrink

Student: Bouchra Chikhi - 6383084 Due date: September 1st

(2)

Abstract

The utilization of CoPs in organizations has increased, because these informal networks are found to be mechanism to support knowledge sharing. Prior research has indicated that the social learning in CoPs leads to the transfer of the more tacit type of knowledge. In addition, scholars have examined the effects of CoPs and their beneficial outcomes in different industries. The purpose of this study is to explore how the integration of multiple CoPs can lead to collective learning in consultancy firms. This research seeks for the conditions that enable inter-CoP knowledge to occur and when consultants are willing to engage in this process. This case study has focussed on a single consultancy firm and a qualitative method has been chosen. A theoretical framework has been defined after the extensive literature review. This study explored through interviews with PwC consultants data regarding the inter-CoPs process. Results show that the social and group conditions are important antecedents for inter-CoP knowledge sharing, whereas the technical factor can be diminished. Findings have suggested that next to the conditions proposed, the effect of social cohesion and group size are significant once looking at the inter-CoP knowledge sharing. This research suggests that the process of inter-CoP knowledge sharing is quite similar to the regular knowledge sharing in CoPs, as proposed. Further research is however needed to determine to examine the relationship or differences between inter- and intra-CoP knowledge sharing.

Key words: Communities of Practice (CoPs), knowledge, knowledge sharing, Inter-CoP knowledge sharing

(3)

Acknowledgements

Business school at the University of Amsterdam was one of my goals in life and I am pleased to share my master piece with you.

I have not established the end result all by myself. Without the support and encouraging words along the way, I would not be able to finish. I would therefore like to use this opportunity to thank the following people for their attribution through the whole study and especially in the last phase. First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Jeroen Kraaijenbrink who has been a very helpful, patient and a pleasant supervisor who believed in me and guided me during the whole process by providing support, feedback and of course critical comments. Secondly, a special thank you to all my interviewed colleagues who cooperated and in some cases introduced me to other colleagues or insights. Last but not least, I would like to thank Allah, my mother, father (may he rest in peace), brothers, brother-in-law and especially my sister, Asmae who has been my tower of strength!!

This masterpiece is dedicated to my grandma who recently passed away and did not see me graduate.

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1. Introduction of the research topic

In the past decade organizations primarily focused on knowledge management (KM) as strategic means for innovation and sustained competitive competition (Chua, 2009). Many firms have applied traditional KM initiatives that concentrate on the role of information technology, which enable explicit knowledge sharing. The traditional KM systems have failed to offer the pledged outcomes such as creation of high-quality knowledge, innovation and organizational learning (Malhotra, 1998; Brown & Duguid, 2002; Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005). Henceforth, traditional KM initiatives generate explicit knowledge and the process of knowledge sharing between individuals and organizations became essential (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Osterloh & Frey, 2000) and the focus shifted from individual learning to a more collective learning.

Communities of Practice (CoPs) have received attention in the academic field since the 20th century but have also acquired attention of organizations that are aware of the value of CoPs as a mechanism to support knowledge sharing. CoPs are recognized to function as an alternative to traditional KM initiatives (Swan et al., 2000; Lesser & Storck, 2001; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). CoPs allow individuals to voluntarily assemble and through interaction, create and share both explicit as tacit knowledge. Reciprocal learning as part of a social process is stimulated by CoPs and enable creative thinking and the creation of innovative solutions. Individuals gradually learn from each other and additionally distribute the knowledge within the community and outside the organizational boundaries. How to manage and obtain knowledge from a CoPs perspective has been topic in knowledge management and information management studies in the 21st

century (Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Huysman & de Wit, 2004; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009) and previously the focus was to obtain knowledge from formal organizational settings such as cross-functional groups, work teams and project teams (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Kulkarni et al., 2007; Smith & Blanck, 2002; Herbsleb & Mockus, 2003) and the focus recently shifted due to the recognition of the role of social capital.

1.2. Research objective

The importance for knowledge sharing in consultancy firms is high once looking at the nature of these firms. Taminiau et al. (2009) identified reasons for failing to share knowledge in consultancy firms. Knowledge in consultancy firms lies in the experience and new ideas that

(7)

arise from the consulting activities carried out for clients. ‘The experience of colleagues is described as an important source of knowledge in consultancy firms’ (Werr and Sternberg, 2003 in Taminiau et al., 2009). Consultancy firms rely on the expertise and knowledge of their consultants. Failing to share or not sharing the amassed knowledge by consultants could lead to knowledge loss on organizational level. The risk of losing knowledge is greater when employees leave a consultancy firm and the developed expertise is not shared with the firm. Every organization faces the risk of losing a fraction or all personal knowledge when knowledge management is not build to capture tacit knowledge. Taminiau et al. (2009) have identified several routes in which knowledge can be created by consultants. Direct knowledge sharing can lead to formal knowledge sharing and eventually create collective learning. The other suggested route is the one in which the direct knowledge is shared on an informal base and eventually contributes to the collective knowledge. Through informal knowledge sharing the more tacit and experience based knowledge is shared. In CoPs, learning is inherently connected to informal knowledge sharing (Wenger, 1998). Organizations consist of multiple CoPs that are formed in a voluntarily manner and operate without organizational interference. The attempt of this research is to explore whether CoPs can contribute on a larger scale by connecting the different CoPs dispersed in a consultancy firm. The various communities can exist outside organizational boundaries on 1) an intra-organizational level (multiple CoPs within an organization) but also on 2) an inter-organizational level (multiple CoPs between organizations) (Brown & Duguid, 1991). In consultancy firms the multiple intra-organizational CoPs operate as separate and non-interdependent units that focus on a specific area. Each CoP functions on itself and generates knowledge that benefits the CoP members and therefore a small fraction of the organization. Organizational knowledge would be increased once knowledge outcomes generated by diverse CoPs would be shared outside CoP boundaries and shared with one another to benefit the whole organization rather than the fraction of employees that are affected through a CoP. This study focusses on the circumstances that enable knowledge sharing between multiple CoPs within a consultancy firm in order to enhance the collective knowledge creation. The knowledge sharing between CoPs in a consultancy firm will be described in this study as the inter-CoPs knowledge sharing.

This research attempts to find out how knowledge sharing between CoPs within consultancy firms cultivates and herewith contribute to the collective knowledge of consultancy service firms. The defined research question should clarify the circumstances under which CoPs

(8)

share knowledge and contribute to inter-CoPs knowledge sharing (e.g. cross-over business units) and contribute to the organizational knowledge. In order to examine the latter, the following research question is formulated:

When do consultants in consultancy firms contribute to knowledge sharing between CoPs (on an inter-CoPs level)?

1.3. Theoretical contribution

‘Many organizations support multiple communities of practice that may be interdependent and overlapping: knowledge sharing across the communities can contribute to organizational learning and innovation’ (Brown & Duguid, 1998 in Wang & Noe 2010). The suggested research contributes to the existing literature by helping to understand how autonomous social networks in a knowledge intensive firm are interacting and as a whole contribute on organizational level. Knowledge developed in informal settings is of greater importance for organizations, and consultancy firms in particular. Knowledge created in informal settings is up-to-date, comes straight from knowledge workers and might consist of raw knowledge that results from their experiences. Raw knowledge is unique and is formed during the daily activities of employees and is a product of their dynamic developments and opportunities arisen from their daily practice and work environment. The individuals (knowledge workers) are important in consultancy firms as they possess the major firm knowledge and use this knowledge in their daily practice which herewith is qualified as knowledge intensive work (Hislop, 2009). Hence, for organizations it is essential to manage the knowledge from their knowledge workers and make it available to be used by all employees as part of organizational and personal learning (Agterberg et al., 2010). Scholars have argued the difficulty for employees to search for important knowledge (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992 in Haas and Hansen, 2005), and moreover to shift knowledge across business units (Szulanski, 2000; Reagans & McEvily, 2003 in Haas and Hansen, 2005), integrate knowledge (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002 in Haas and Hansen, 2005) and utilize the assimilated knowledge (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999 in Haas and Hansen, 2005). Authors have noticed that knowledge sharing across business units can be managed through CoPs (Brown and Duguid, 1991). A lot of research is done on communities, especially regarding Communities of Practice (CoPs) and Network of Practice (NoPs) which are also defined as virtual communities of practice (VoPs) (Agterberg et al., 2010; Ardichvili et al., 2003; Soekijad, 2011, Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Little research has been done on how multiple CoPs in an organization connect and whether these

(9)

CoPs interact. The suggested research contribution is to find insights in how interaction across CoPs works and moreover how they enable learning on a collective base in consultancy firms. The study will also add on the literature concerning organizational learning within consultancy firms in particular.

(10)

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter the concepts of knowledge, Communities of Practice (CoPs) and the conditions of knowledge sharing in CoPs will be discussed in depth in order to create a theoretical foundation for this study. The first paragraph will enlighten the various concepts of knowledge in order to understand the importance and value of knowledge to organizations. In the second paragraph the concept of CoPs will be discussed in more detail in order to understand the contribution CoPs have on knowledge management and organizations. In the last paragraph the conditions that are needed in consultancy firms in their attempt to enable knowledge sharing through CoPs will be elaborated in depth and the formulated hypotheses will be introduced, resulting in a conceptual framework.

2.1. Knowledge

Knowledge can create a distinctive character for organizations once it meets the features as mentioned by Barney (1991) and when it is shared with others. But what does knowledge entail? In the literature there is a distinction made between information, data and knowledge. Data is mostly described as quantifiable basic or numeric information (Smith, 2001). Information is processed data, which is accessible in many forms and accessible to everyone (Harari, 1997). Information amongst others can reside in libraries, databanks and computers. In order for information to become knowledge, it has to be individually interpreted and personalized based on individual’s personal experiences, skills and competences. Information by itself is meaningless, it is not valuable until it is used for its purpose. Giving meaning to information is done by individuals, and therefore the role of human intervention is essential to comprehend and moreover to draw the relevant types of information for usage (Lee, 2000). Bollinger and Smith (2001) define knowledge as “the understanding, awareness, or familiarity” acquired path dependently. Recognizing and translating the prior obtained information into useable information is determined by many internal and external factors and therefore knowledge is multi-interpretable and captured in our individual minds. Davenport and Prusak (1998) define knowledge as a “fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information and expert insight that provide a framework for evaluation and incorporating new experiences and information.” Each individual interprets the environmental information differently and values the information on a personal and unique way. Organizational knowledge is a sum of both the available knowledge that is shared on a collective level and the knowledge that is available (in the minds of the individuals) but not yet shared within an organization.

(11)

According to Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) organizational knowledge results from path dependent adaptions due to internal and external interactions. Bollinger & Smith (2001) state that organizational knowledge is an over time earned good, that enables organizations to enrich deeper and more understanding of their business and the market that leads to wisdom. The transformation into new organizational knowledge is established when various levels of expertise and experience are fused rather than just summing up all individual knowledge. Fusion of collectively gathered knowledge means that older and new insights from different perspectives are gathered and combined, leading to better understanding on the organizational level.

2.1.1. Knowledge types

The common used organizational theory, distinguishes two dimensions of knowledge creation; the degree of articulation and the degree of aggregation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Blackler, 1995). The first dimension, the degree of articulation, draws the distinction between two types of knowledge: tacit and explicit knowledge. In the second dimension, the distinction is made between the two forms of knowledge: an individual and collective a base (Nonaka, 1994; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002).

Explicit vs. Tacit knowledge

Both explicit and tacit knowledge have been identified as essential ingredients for organizational knowledge (Huysman & Wulf, 2005). The difference between these two types of knowledge has been described in previous work by Polanyi (1966). Nonaka (1994) build on Polany’s work and according to him, explicit knowledge can be captured in records such as libraries, archives, databases and other forms of data storage. Explicit knowledge is the codifiable knowledge component, which is formulated or expressed in an easy understandable way through numeric, symbolic or verbal communication (Smith, 2001) and is easily communicated to others (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). This type of knowledge is thus easy to store and to share due to its character and ease to be formalized through electronic methods and other formal means. Explicit knowledge is often defined as the know-what or systematic knowledge which in most cases is technical. According to Smith (2001) a level of understanding is needed and such understanding can be developed through formal training and study. Due to its character, this type of knowledge typifies the objective knowledge that is reusable in similar situations by the same or different person(s).

(12)

Tacit knowledge on the other hand is the intangible form of knowledge and includes hard-to-communicate skills, know-how or practical knowledge (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). According to Nonaka (1994) tacit knowledge is more personal ‘which makes it hard to formulize and communicate’. Tacit knowledge is hidden in the individuals mind and is often not easy to describe, let alone transfer (Bollinger & Smith, 2001). Examples of tacit knowledge are the intangibles like insights, lessons learned from education but also from life itself, personal judgment, instinct, feelings, values, beliefs, perceptions, assumptions and other cognitive based views (Gupta et al., 2000; Smith, 2001). Information and knowledge is everywhere and we are frequently exposed to it. However the way specific knowledge is recognised, interpreted and eventually personalized dependents on what we have seen and experienced as an individual. Gupta et al. (2000) endorse this and state that tacit knowledge is in ‘the domain of subjective, cognitive and experiential learning’. How we sense and experience the world is a subjective and cognitive process, which we communicate to others by using metaphors, demonstrations or telling stories (Smith, 2001). The tacit aspect lies in the ‘why’ and ‘how’ things happened in a specific situation and how to use this information and insights in future situations or when it concerns another person, how to apply another its know-how in your own practice. The ‘variety’ of an individual’s experience and “knowledge of experience” are identified as factors that have an impact on the quality of tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). This implies that once an individual is self-involved, the experiences are related and add to an individual’s understanding and herewith deepening its perspective.

Individual vs. Organizational knowledge

In the second dimension, the distinction is made between the forms of knowledge on individual and collective base (Nonaka, 1994; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Out of these two dimensions, the four classes of knowledge have been created: individual-tacit, individual explicit, collective-tacit and collective-explicit (Nonaka, 1994). Organizational knowledge results from the continuous interaction between these four types of knowledge, which requires that the individual vision and skills are accumulated into collective and shared knowledge (Spender, 1996). In order for individual knowledge to be available for others it needs to be integrated into the organization’s knowledge system (Nonaka et al., 2006). Individual and organizational knowledge are thus interdepend and inseparable. Individuals learn and gain experience-based knowledge in their daily work. Each individual develops experiences and other practice related outcomes in particular knowledge through path dependently acquired understanding and interpretation. This is why individuals do not

(13)

interpret the same experiences or situations identically. Personal interpretation that is given by an individual is how the obtained information is processed to one’s individual (tacit) knowledge. When such personal knowledge and its meaning is shared with others such as co-workers, others can benefit from it. At this stage the personal knowledge is no longer a personal good but a public good (Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Organizations learn and acquire knowledge over time. Shared expertise and other forms of experience-based knowledge contribute to the collective knowledge and finally integrate into the organization. Intellectual capital is another term for organizational knowledge and is defined by Nahapiet & Ghosal (1998) as the “knowledge and knowing capability of a social collectivity”, such as in an organization. Returning to the four classes of knowledge, organizational knowledge is the sum of both individual knowledge types. Organizational knowledge is a result of the interaction between the organization and its environment (Nonaka et al., 2006). This suggests that not only individuals but the organizations too are subject to the dynamic, evolving and non-static nature of knowledge. Changes and updates as a result of new insights and new ideas that arise in practices should be captured, categorized and contextualized through all organizational layers in order to create new organizational knowledge. Bhatt (2002) has identified the relationship between individual and organizational knowledge and proposed the framework shown below. The nature of tasks determines whether an individual draws entirely from its own expertise and tacit knowledge or from the specified and routine based shared knowledge on the organizational level. The horizontal axis stands for the nature of interactions.

(14)

With this framework the interdependence and inseparability between individual and organizational knowledge is shown. The more non-routine, complex and non-specifiable a task is, all the more tacit knowledge is acquired to complete the task and vice versa. When the degree and frequency of interactions is higher, more likely knowledge sharing is occurring and resulting in organizational knowledge.

2.1.2. Knowledge sharing

Knowledge is a critical factor, which needs to be developed and shared within organizations in order to keep up with the rapid/dynamic environments organizations operate in. Knowledge sharing is useful as it has beneficial outcomes such as:

- Sharing valuable knowledge;

- Avoids re-inventing the wheel, reducing redundant work; - Creates knowledge with help of experienced individuals; - Reduces cost of inventions;

- Solves problems at primary level (Parekh, 2009; Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki, 2012).

Organizations try to find ways to access existing knowledge and advance knowledge creation. Knowledge sharing is a process in which individuals and groups communicate their know-how un-intentionally and intentionally to mutual gain from it (Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki, 2012). The social interaction culture leads to sharing of individual’s know-how, expertise, skills, experiences, ideas, suggestions or other (job) relevant information, to update others or to cooperate with others to improve each other’s daily work and develop new knowledge through the organization (Lin, 2007; Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Cummings, 2004). Knowledge sharing on the organizational level is focused on capturing, reusing and relocating available knowledge in a manner that is accessible to everybody within the organization (Lin, 2007). With knowledge sharing new knowledge is being combined with existing knowledge in newer knowledge (Antonova et al, 2011). As discussed in previous section, individuals possess tacit knowledge and this type of knowledge is intangible. Sharing its own individual knowledge with others cannot be forced in any way. Willingness to actively do so is something that individuals decide their selves (Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Huysman & de Wit, 2004; Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Individuals can choose to share their knowledge with others out of kindness and relationship purposes or to control their impression on others (Wang & Noe, 2010). These different knowledge-sharing motivations determine when and with whom the individual is willing to share its knowledge with.

(15)

However the possibility exists that, individuals might be reluctant of sharing their knowledge as fear of losing their ownership, power of superiority (Szulanski, 1996; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000), not being acknowledged and rewarded properly, losing distinctiveness compared to others (Wang & Noe, 2010) or the hectic work environment leaving no time for individuals to share (Szulanski, 1996).

Explicit knowledge is compared to tacit knowledge, due to its codifiable character, the ease by which it is communicated and shared by individuals (Smith, 2001; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Davison et al., 2013).

Different knowledge sharing modes

In this context knowledge creation is interpreted equally as knowledge sharing. Through knowledge sharing, access to existing knowledge is provided as a result of the interaction that occurs between different individuals. The process of knowledge sharing leads not only to the discussion of existing knowledge but more importantly expands the individuals’ comprehension (Lin, 2007; Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Cummings, 2004). With knowledge sharing new knowledge is being combined with existing knowledge in newer knowledge on both individual as on organizational level. (Antonova et al, 2011). Below table illustrates the different knowledge sharing modes.

Table 1. Four modes of knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) To

From Tacit Explicit

Tacit 1. Socialization 2. Externalization

Explicit 3. Internalization 4. Combination

1. Socialization; knowledge sharing is done by learning in practice or learning in a social setting by others. In this process individuals share their personally obtained vision of the world with others. The output in this process is tacit, and the knowledge receivers personalize the obtained knowledge for future usage. Socialization can occur in formal settings through several forms of training/education facilities such as workshops, seminars, class etc. Informal socialization on the other hand, can occur anywhere as long as the individual is sharing its experiences with others.

(16)

2. Externalization; this type of knowledge sharing has been recognized in literature as the tacit knowledge sharing process (Nonaka, 1994). In this stage, the personally obtained knowledge in form of individual’s perspectives, expertise, and skills etc. are giving meaning outside a humans mind. Personally obtained knowledge, such individual’s experiences and other forms of tacit knowledge are being expressed in written form. Converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge needs codification in order to be accessible. Tacit knowledge can be codified, but by codifying tacit into explicit knowledge the risk of losing its uniqueness and meaning arises which could lead to value loss (Davison et al., 2013). This means that the interpretation and meaning one gives to a particular aspect is not easily translated, codified and stored in an identical way.

3. Internalization; shared explicit knowledge becomes tacit, once it is expressed and embodied as tacit knowledge. Absorbing explicit knowledge and interpreting this by using the personal frame of reference is the process of internalizing. The interpretation given to learned elements from formal settings is how explicit knowledge is understood and in some cases personalized. The offered knowledge will not be part of an individual before he or she can place it and be familiar with this knowledge as if he or she was responsible for the creation of this knowledge.

4. Combination; sharing explicit knowledge can be viewed as combining pieces of knowledge into an accessible and collective whole. It is simply said capturing all knowledge and distributing this within organizations (Nonaka, 1994).

Knowledge sharing can be an outcome of formal and informal mechanism (Lawson et al., 2009). Furthermore, the first two knowledge-sharing processes seem more reliant on the willingness of the individual, due to the type of knowledge that needs to be shared and take place in informal settings. These informal settings normally arise naturally, but some of these organizations intentionally bring individuals together in order to participate in formal settings such as workshops. Brown and Duguid (1991) have noticed that knowledge sharing across business units or crossover organizations can be managed through communities. The informal character of this type of interaction in which experiences are shared and stories regarding the common interests are told (Orr, 1996 in Haas and Hansen, 2005), contribute to knowledge sharing in means of recognition and development of new (creative) ideas. The last two knowledge-sharing processes however, are more in line with the formal knowledge sharing that occurs in organizations. Explicit knowledge is usually communicated and shared through knowledge management systems.

(17)

Types of knowledge sharing

The conceptualized knowledge sharing distinction proposed by Haas & Hansen (2007) is merely focused on the way knowledge transferring takes place. The first type of knowledge sharing is called the personal advice usage. This type of sharing is realized through ‘direct contact between individuals’ and during this contact, individuals consult each other about how to solve or complete a specific task (Hansen, 1999; Tsai, 2001; Cummings & Cross, 2003). The personal advice usage requires direct contact and therefore person-to-person sharing can exist through face-to-face interaction, in meetings, by email or by phone (Haas & Hansen, 2007). The person-to-person contact encourages the sharing of the more personal, non-codifiable tacit knowledge. The second type of knowledge sharing is through the usage of written documents in both electronic and paper form (Hansen & Haas, 2001; Werr & Sternberg, 2003 in Taminiau et al., 2009). This type of sharing is more appropriate for the codifiable type of knowledge due to its ease to translate and communicate. This type is called the electronic document usage. Individuals record codifiable knowledge and that knowledge is obtained in databases that are available and accessible to others. Electronic management systems enable the sharing of stored documents and there is no direct contact between the individuals needed. Knowledge management initiatives are founded on centralizing explicit knowledge in form of electronic management systems. How knowledge sharing is managed will be further discussed in the following paragraph.

2.1.3. Knowledge management

Knowledge management (KM) is considered as a process that consists of various activities (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Acquiring, creating, storing, sharing, diffusing, developing, and deploying knowledge by individuals and groups are the in literature considered KM activities (Zheng et al., 2010; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Wang & Noe, 2009). Huysman & Wit (2004) define KM as the process that facilitates and structures knowledge sharing. Proposed definitions imply that knowledge management can be viewed as the process in which organizations intentionally put effort in facilitating knowledge creation organization wide. Reasons to manage knowledge can differ and in the KM field there are two broad classes of knowledge sharing strategies recognized; personalization and codification (Hansen et al., 1999; Andriessen & Verburg, 2006). With the personalization strategy organizations will focus on the tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is on individual level and therefore the focus of management is in sharing the individual’s interpersonal communication. The two modes of knowledge creation socialization and externalization Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi,

(18)

1995) as mentioned in previous paragraph are similar to the personalization knowledge sharing strategy. With the codification strategy, the focus will be on the explicit knowledge, which is easily extracted and coded. This strategy is comparable to the two other modes of knowledge creation socialization and externalization (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) internalization and combination. Management of this type of knowledge is aimed on formalizing, whereupon the knowledge will be stored in databases. These two strategies imply that organizations cannot implement a certain knowledge management system (KMS) without understanding the different types of knowledge and moreover their required management approaches. Hahn & Subramani (2000) suggested two considerations in managing knowledge 1) the location of the knowledge and 2) whether the knowledge is structured. The difference between managing tacit or explicit resided knowledge is a recent topic in the knowledge management and information management field (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009; Huysman & De Wit, 2004).

Traditional KM vs. Emerging KM

The KM development shifted from the traditional KM also called the engineering approach, to a more evolving KM approach that is merely focussed on the social aspect (Bollinger and Smith, 2001; Huysman & de Wit, 2004; Kotlarsky & Oshri, 2005; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Knowledge sharing has been acknowledged to be personally, socially determined which could not be forced but results from the willingness of an individual (Wasko & Faraj, 2005; Huysman & de Wit, 2004; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). In the traditional KM, management facilitates groundwork for knowledge codification and storage in the therefore enabled tools. The traditional KM focused on the explicit knowledge management by using formal mechanisms in KMS (Oshri et al., 2008; Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki, 2012). Traditional KM and its tools is useful in facilitating communication between individuals and herewith diminish constraints of time and distance or in other terms the three barriers: temporal-, physical- and social distance (Hendriks, 1999). The emerging KM approach however is aware of the dependence on social capital of a group of people rather than on management involvement (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009).

(19)

Table 2. Differences between the first (traditional) and second generation (emerging) of KM (Huysman & de Wit, 2004).

First wave Second wave

Why is knowledge shared? Managerial needs Part of daily work: as a routine When is knowledge shared? When there is an opportunity to do so When there is a need to do so Where is knowledge shared? Operational level Organization-wide Whose knowledge is shared? Individual: human capital Collective: social capital

What knowledge is shared? Codified Tacit and codified

How is knowledge shared? Repository systems and electronic networks

Via personal and electronic networks

As shown in table 2, the focus in the emerging KM is not on capturing and storing codified knowledge but to allow new knowledge creation occur naturally through the whole organization. Knowledge sharing through social interaction not only facilitates knowledge diffusion in a social bounded group, but also creates fertile soil for new knowledge creation. The process of knowledge sharing is in this perspective viewed as knowledge creation by developing sense and meaning through interaction rather than adopting transferred knowledge from others (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). The role of management in the emerging KM practice is diminished and the managerial intervention in order to collect individual’s knowledge and to make it publically available within the organization is no longer needed (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). KM in this perspective should focus on enhancing sharing practices between individuals and groups of people within the organization. Organizations can influence the knowledge sharing in social settings, by its organizational and technical infrastructures (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). These infrastructures do not enhance the knowledge sharing process itself, but they can be viewed as the environment in which the informal knowledge sharing should originate. According to Gold et al. (2001) these infrastructures play key roles in the process of maximizing the full potential of social capital in organizations. These factors create conditions for emergent knowledge sharing to occur. According to Van den Hooff & Huysman (2009) emergent KM is providing a platform for social capital through the enhancement of the organizational and technical infrastructure. Organizational infrastructure can be distinguished in structural and cultural infrastructures. Defining clear roles and responsibilities within organizations is an example of organizational structure. Transparent roles and knowing where particular knowledge resides and how to contact others is one of the attempts management should take into account in facilitating knowledge sharing through their structure infrastructure.

(20)

Organizations should create an organizational structure that has no or less formal barriers and that permits intra-organizational interaction (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Individuals are diffused in an organization and their common interests are not bounded to their department or (project) team. As in normal social settings individuals in organizations are drawn to each other due to shared interests and beliefs. Organizations should according to and Wenger’s (1991) give individuals the autonomy to engage in informal groups such as internal communities. The combination of working and learning in informal settings would optimally increase the knowledge creation and sharing on organizational level.

2.1.4. Conclusion Knowledge

Knowledge is a dynamic resource which has positive outcomes such as performance and even sustained competitive advantage when it is optimally captured, shared and available for all organizational members. Organizations are dependent on the knowledge resided in the individuals and it is difficult for organizations to claim individual knowledge and especially the tacit type. Knowledge sharing cannot be enforced, but should be encouraged by organizations. In the traditional KM approach the systems are supporting the formal knowledge sharing by capturing and delivering knowledge in a structured manner. In the emerging approach groups of people and networks are connected through direct contact or by the usage of interactive tools and social enterprise systems, enhancing learning crossover units within organizations.

2.2. Communities of Practice (CoPs)

The literature regarding CoP has received attention over the years and resulted in several conceptualizations and the theory has evolved over the years. Scholars have approached learning from a social point of view and have identified the learning pattern that arises in Communities of Practice (CoP) (Brown, & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The CoPs concept initially emerged from former work of Lave & Wenger (1991) and Brown & Duguid (1991), Wenger (1998) and Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002). The term CoP invented by Lave & Wenger (1991) has been used in various academic fields since its first introduction and the contribution made by Wenger (1998).

2.2.1. What are CoPs

Brown & Duguid (2000) identified two types of social networks that contribute to knowledge creation through its learning behaviour that arises: Communities of Practice (CoP) and Networks of Practice (NoP). These two types differ on the connection aspect that on one hand

(21)

is based on the real-life contact between members and on the other hand on the virtual connection between (dispersed) individuals. CoPs contain people that are bounded by a mutual interest and engage in a shared practice and meet occasionally in informal settings and interact. CoPs arise naturally and it contains individuals with the same interests and these CoP members meet with each other to discuss their shared practices. NoPs on the other hand, consists of geographically dispersed individuals that are connected in an electronic network that enables social interaction, communication and sharing practice without meeting each other (Brown & Duguid, 2001). The willingness to interact and collaborate with other NoP members in NoPs, is an effect that arises when members connect and share mutual interests and similar practices (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Brown and Duguid (1991) have identified CoPs to be a mechanism through which knowledge is held and created. From this perspective the interaction between community members is the catalyst when it comes to learning. Learning has been approached by scholars from a social point of view and have identified the learning pattern that arises in CoPs (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown, & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998). In CoPs, learning is inherently connected to knowledge sharing (Wenger, 1998).

Learning through CoPs

Social learning has been derived from Wenger’s work (1991; 1998) and has offered a wide range of concepts. The situated learning theory from Lave and Wenger’s (1991) focused on the concept called situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). LLP focuses on the learning ability, which is based on the relationships between people, the situation, an informal setting and the degree of recognition. The learning aspect in the so-called situated learning is discussed to be a continuous, active, engaged, situated and moreover an identity forming process through the participation in a CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Cox, 2005; Handley et al. 2006).

Wenger (1998) later elaborated on the concept of social learning theory and focussed on CoPs in an organizational setting and redefined the CoPs theory ‘Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity’ with a focus on the practical aspect. He refers to participation as “local events of engagement in certain activities with certain people, but to a more encompassing process of being active participants in the practices of social communities and constructing identities in relation to these communities” (Wenger, 1998). Participation is not referred to as an employment with others but more as active involvement in social bounded communities and identity formation through participation. Social learning consists of

(22)

multiple components and Wenger (1998) simplifies the process of learning by integrating these elements as seen in figure 3.

Figure 3: Components of a social theory of learning (Wenger, 1998)

Meaning: refers to the ability to talk our experiences of life and how we observe the world as meaningful.

Practice: refers to the shared recourses and interests that are discussed and shared.

Community: participation in activity system in which participants share understandings concerning what they are doing and how that affects their lives and their communities. Identity: the way we as individuals adapt to the environment we are part off and become part of the community we engage in.

Wenger (1998) attempts to illustrate the individual’s ability to understand the world by reflecting to your own life and experiences. In this concept Wenger (1998) has explored the relation between learning, meaning and identity and the fact that learning is a derivate of the interconnection of these elements. Thus learning is established by active participation in social settings such as CoPs. CoPs are formed by the three building blocks as mentioned earlier (domain, community and practice). This proposes that members fit in a certain community and by participating, these members discuss and thus gradually share their experiences.

CoPs definitions over time

Lave & Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) can be recognized as the founders of the CoP phenomenon. Over the time, the theory regarding CoP has evolved and is diverse due to the different points of view. Lave & Wenger (1991) for example define CoPs as a non-static process of flow through members that participate on the base of identity (feeling to be part of the group) as long as the common interest is sustained. Brown and Duguid (1991) have not build on the definition proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991). A redefinition of CoPs on the other hand has not been provided either by the authors. Wenger (1998) however provided an understandable definition of CoPs. Other scholars have elaborated on their work and some

(23)

have come up with their own definition of CoPs. In this overview the different definitions over time are shown on a summarized level.

Table 3. Overview with CoP definitions over time.

Year Author Definition

1991 Lave & Wenger A CoP is a system of relationships between people, activities and the world; developing with time, and in relation to other tangential and overlapping communities of practice.

1991 Brown & Duguid Communities of practice are important sources where learning takes place. It is a group of people in which working, learning and innovating takes place. 1997 Snyder Communities of practice are defined as collections of individuals bound by

informal relationships that share similar work roles and common context.

1998 Wenger CoPs are the social fabric of learning through negation of meaning

preservation and creation of knowledge, spreading of information and as a home for identities.

1999 Collier & Esteban CoPs employ active participation and decision-making by individuals, as opposed to separated decision-making that is present in traditional organizations.

1999 Liedtka Individuals united in action.

2000 Wick CoPs are groups of professionals with similar task responsibilities.

2000 Wenger A CoP is a group of people who share an interest in a domain of human

endeavour and engage in a process of collective learning that creates bonds between them. Thus, CoPs are groups of people who share a passion for something that they know how to do and who interact regularly to learn to do it better.

2002 Andriessen CoPs are distributed groups of professionals, belonging to separate

departments that have a common field of work for which they exchange or develop knowledge.

2002 Wenger,

McDermott & Snyder

Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an on-going basis.

2003 Østerlund &

Carlile

A CoP is not defined in and of itself but through the relations shaped by its practices. CoPs are probabilistic constructs that should not necessarily be conflated with reality.

2003 Pan & Leidner A CoP is defined as people bound by informal relationships that share common practices.

2003 Scarborough et al. CoPs are the fabrics of knowing as members of CoPs acquire communal identity around a shared passion, relationship, roles and ways of intermingling common knowledge, practices and approaches.

2003 Barab, Makinster

and Scheckler

A persistent, sustained social network of individuals who share and develop an overlapping knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history, and experience focused on a common practice/or mutual enterprise.

2005 Hippel, von CoPs are significant sources of innovation because of their constant adaption to changing membership and changing circumstances.

2006 Dunham et al. These groups are marked by a strong sense of identity, mutual obligation and an openness that facilitates learning and change within organizations.

2006 Andriessen &

Verbrug

Communities of Practice are inter- or intra-organisational, often geographically dispersed, groups of people that have a long-term orientation on knowledge sharing or knowledge creating activities. The groups have their own identity and focus their knowledge processes around a certain practice, i.e. a professional discipline, skill or topic.

2007 Nickols A CoP is usually created by a group of functionally similar individuals who share a passion or commitment toward a specific activity or group of activities, and desire to share this knowledge with others.

(24)

automatically operate as learning communities. Learning communities are those that continuously inquire into their practice, and, as a result, discover, create, and negotiate new meanings that improve their practice.

As noted above, there is a great diversity of definitions over time. In this study the definition of Andriessen & Verbrug (2006) will be used: ‘Communities of Practice are inter- or intra-organisational, often geographically dispersed, groups of people that have a long-term orientation on knowledge sharing or knowledge creating activities. The groups have their own identity and focus their knowledge processes around a certain practice, i.e. a professional discipline, skill or topic.’ This definition has been chosen because this definition embodies the description of CoPs in the researched consultancy firm and this definition therefore closely matches how the consultancy firm defines CoPs.

CoPs characteristics

Wenger (1998) states that a CoP can be formed without the community members being aware of its existence. This means that a CoP is naturally formed and that its members are not experiencing the CoP as an obligatory formed group in which they participate. However, Wenger (1998) thinks that a CoP has a number of characteristics as shown below. These indicators illustrate the characteristics to identify a CoP.

Table 4. Key indicators of Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998).

Wenger (1998) states that a CoP defines itself along three dimensions: mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire.

Key characteristics of a community of practice:

1. Sustained mutual relationships – harmonious or conflictual 2. Shared ways of engaging in doing things together 3. The rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation

4. Absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process 5. Very quick setup of a problem to be discussed

6. Substantial overlap in participants ‘descriptions of who belongs

7. Knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise 8. Mutually defining identities

9. The ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products 10. Specific tools, representations, and other artifacts 11. Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter

12. Jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones 13. Certain styles recognized as displaying membership

(25)

Mutual engagement comes from the interaction between the members. Shared topics and notable experiences from own practices are discussed through the interaction between the CoP members. The interaction between the different members leads to (new) insights and members can act as example figures for others. Herewith, members are indirectly informed about faced challenges and how others have dealt with these. These shared examples act as learning mechanisms that provide the necessary grip in daily tasks. In literature the benefits from these interrelating groups as in CoPs are furthermore recognized. According to Hemmasi and Csanda (2009) the CoP members are “responsive in dealing with the opportunities and challenges of today’s rapidly changing environment”. This would suggest that interaction between the members widens their horizon when it comes to their individual knowledge. Members capture (new) various insights and ideas and process it in sense that they adapt others’ practices/experiences that can be utilized in a later stadium in their own organization when challenging or new opportunities are faced. In a CoP the interaction between members does not just start if there is no joint enterprise.

The joint enterprise stands for the attachment within the group and forms according to Hemmasi and Csanda (2009) ‘the sense of coherence and purpose to the CoP’. This aspect underlines the collectively agreed path the CoP will take and what can be mutually expected from each other. In each CoP, members understand each other due to the shared interest, which binds them together as long as the joint enterprise remains. On the other hand, the joint enterprise can change along the way due to changing individual interest or new developments in the area. Members can lose interest and leave, members can be drawn to another specific interest and be part of another CoP. Within organizations there can exist multiple CoPs that do not interact with each other. Members on the other side can be part of multiple CoPs, due to their individual diverse interests or repertoire.

A shared repertoire can be interpreted as the culture and its standards and values that are formed in a CoP. Iverson and Mcphee (2002) describe the shared repertoire as ‘set of resources for negotiating meaning: stories, jargon, theories, forms and other understood information and techniques that can be utilized by members’. In fact each group has a way of formulating and discussing the shared interest. Members in a specific CoP will understand their CoP environment and learn the CoP’s repertoire along the way as part of the process of becoming members (Iverson and Mcphee, 2002). This identity creation due to CoPs is a social process in which community members and their individual experiences play a key role. Information cannot be digested into knowledge if these conditions are not met. According to

(26)

Iverson and Mcphee (2002) the mutual engagement can be viewed as a connection in a network, but merely focused on the interest and activity aspect of the relationship.

Wenger et al. (2002) have introduced a new dimension to the meaning of CoPs. Their dimension endorses the recognized shift within the CoPs literature. Earlier CoPs were described as informal learning settings that occurred on a voluntarily base without the influence from the organization. The shift in CoPs literature lies in the value CoPs add to organizations. The meaning of a group is in this sense ambiguous and non-comparable to how CoPs were characterized in previous two concepts. In previous concepts the group consists of people with a shared enterprise combined to improve their work through learning from others and (Wenger, 1991; 1998) and how to create new insights and therefore knowledge from others (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Earlier CoPs where seen as autonomously formed learning centres in which the extraction of tacit knowledge would benefit the group members and eventually the organization. From the Wenger et al. (2002) approach CoPs are merely seen as a management-supporting tool that enhances the knowledge creation in large organizations. In other words an organization is able to form CoPs in order to intentionally learn and share knowledge, rather than CoPs being autonomous and formed outside the organization borders because of shared interests. Wenger et al. identified three crucial CoP characteristics and when all three function prospering together it can result according to Wenger et al. (2002) in ‘knowledge structure – a social structure that can assume responsibility for developing and sharing knowledge’.

Figure 2. The three structural elements of a CoP

1. Domain: A CoP is a community that is based on the domain which according to Wenger et al (2002) is where the identity of the CoP is embedded. ‘The domain gives identity, and the commitment to care for this domain gives it cohesiveness and intentionality that goes beyond the interpersonal nature of informal networks’ (Wenger et al, 2002). It is not the shared interest which is responsible for the CoP creation, the members sharing the same interest or

(27)

commitment to the domain that distinguishes them from other people is. The group is in this concept a more coherence of people that for some reason are sharing a same interest, but are not together in order to act for the sake of the shared enterprise but to learn and develop knowledge by valuing their collective competence (Wenger et al, 2002).

2. The community: Members engage in joint activities, discussions, help each other and share information with other members within a domain because of their interest and commitment to the shared domain (Wenger et al, 2002). According to Wenger et al, (2002) the members build relationships in a community and learn from each other fostering knowledge sharing. Community members do not necessarily have to work together, but moreover meet occasionally and interact with each other. Interaction within a community is an essential element that distinguishes a CoP from other social groups. Over time these interactions and discussions act as sounding boards and contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in various forms such as individual satisfaction (understanding and improving their personal skills and feeling to be part of a group) but more significantly in collective knowledge (by creating tools, standards, manuals and other forms of documentation).

3. The practice: A CoP is not purely a group of people who happened to share the same interest. Members of a community are practitioners (Wenger et al, 2002). CoP members develop a shared practice, which stands for: a shared repertoire of resources such as experiences, stories, tools or ways of addressing recurring problems (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al, 2002). The development of a shared practice takes time and is enhanced by the interactions that take place in a CoP.

2.2.3. CoPs in organizations

CoPs are recognized as valuable assets within organizations. Next to the beneficial effects on the individual level, the awareness around the benefits on the organizational level is increased (Lesser & Storck, 2001). CoPs enable learning and knowledge sharing outside the traditional organization structural boundaries. CoPs have long-term effects such as their contribution to intellectual capital. CoPs play a key role in the creation of all three dimensions of social capital (structural, relational and cognitive) which ultimately lead to the creation of organizational outcomes such as performance and organizational memory (Tsai & Ghosal, 1998; Nahapiet & Ghosal, 1998; Lesser & Storck, 2001). Authors have recognized the business benefits that are associated with CoPs (Lesser & Storck, 2001; Fontaine & Miller, 2004; Kimble & Hildreth, 2004). Lesser & Storck (2001) found that CoPs influence business outcomes through the learning ability that arises in CoPs. The learning curve of new

(28)

employees decreases as CoPs simplify the process of understanding and knowing how the organization works. CoPs are informal learning environments in which interaction arises and the more experienced members share their experiences with the other (less experienced) members (Nonaka & Schwen, 2006). Through their participation and interaction in such a community mutual engagement is created and learning is established resulting in a shared repertoire of collective resources. ‘CoPs are a natural part of organizational life. They will develop on their own and many will flourish, whether or not the organization recognizes them. Their health depends primarily on the voluntary engagement of their members and on the emergence of internal leadership’ (Wenger et al, 2002). But why would organizations focus on CoPs if they have a self- preserving character, which implies that no management interference is needed? As discussed in previous sections, CoPs tie (dispersed) individuals who feel connected and learn from each other herewith continuously create diverse forms of knowledge (Nonaka & Schwen, 2006). The beneficial organizational affects that arise from CoPs have been elaborately discussed in the literature. Wenger (1998; 2000), Wenger & Snyder (2000) and Wenger et al. (2002) however argue that the passive role of organizations should be changed into a more active role in which CoPs are deliberately build, stimulated and sustained. Organizations should not mandate CoPs but management should rather focus on cultivating CoPs. In the following sections the role of organizations and how CoP optimization can be achieved, will be discussed.

Managing CoPs

CoPs are different than other organizational forms when it comes to their existence, purpose, motivation and duration. Wenger & Snyder (2002) and Wenger et al. (2002) have introduced a new dimension to the meaning of CoPs. Their dimension endorses the recognized shift within the CoPs literature. In prior literature CoPs were described as informal learning settings that occurred on a voluntarily base without the influence from the organization. The shift in CoPs literature lies in the value CoPs add to organizations. In figure 4, illustrated below, the difference between CoPs and other organizational forms is given in order to understand how CoPs normally function without interference.

(29)

Figure 4. Comparison of CoPs and organizational forms (Wenger & Snyder, 2000)

What’s the purpose Who Belongs? What holds it together? How long does it last? Community

of Practice capabilities; to build andTo develop members’ exchange knowledge

Members who select

themselves Passion, commitment, andidentification with the group’s expertise

As long as there is interest in maintaining

the group

Formal Work

group To deliver a product orservice Everyone who reports tothe group’s manager Job requirements andcommon goals reorganizationUntil the next

Project team To accomplish a specified

task Employees assigned bysenior management The project’s milestonesand goals Until the project hasbeen completed

Informal

network To collect and pass onbusiness information Friends and businessacquaintances Mutual needs As long as people havea reason to connect

CoPs are informal groups that are organized by themselves without managerial interference. CoP membership is a self-made choice that is influenced by shared interests and beneficial outcomes on a personal level. Duration of a CoP is dependent on how long the shared interest is sustained. The strength of CoPs lie in their self-perpetuating nature (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). During their different life stages CoPs are able to create knowledge and renew themselves in order to develop newer knowledge (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Although CoPs are familiar for their self-organizing strength, Wenger & Snyder (2000) state that management can intervene in order to help reaching their full potential.

Wenger & Snyder (2000) suggest that management should consider the following three aspects when amplifying the value of CoPs:

1. Identifying potential communities;

Informal networks of people mostly exist in organizations without awareness of the organization itself. Managers should recognize and identify these groups in order to help them grow into a CoP (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). The task of the manager is to make sure there is a community’s domain defined. Without a domain members do not personally connect and identify themselves with the CoP.

2. Providing the infrastructure;

CoPs are vulnerable because other than organizational forms, they lack the legitimacy, budget and established infrastructure within organizations (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Intervention on this level means that management should invest both in time and money for CoPs to reach their full potential as possible. Wenger & Snyder (2000) state that sponsors and support teams are means to support CoPs with their coordination.

(30)

Organizations cannot easily measure the value obtained by a CoP because the effects of CoPs activities are delayed or not directly linked to specific organizational performance (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). The outcomes of CoPs are linked to the improvement of individual performance which will reflect on its performance within the organization. The value of CoPs in organizations can according to the authors be assessed by listening to the stories in a systematic way. Through stories the relationship between CoPs and the knowledge contribution derived from them would be visible.

Cultivating CoPs

CoPs will exist whether organizations actively try to play a role in facilitating and prospering the learning to its maximal full potential. It would be a loss for organizations to miss out on these accumulated knowledge and not benefit from the innovative outcome CoPs engender. Creating an environment in which CoPs can be developed means that organizations should acknowledge their value added learning that arises during their interactions, participation and gives CoPs space and time to succeed by removing the obstacles as possible. Next to facilitating CoPs to prosper, CoPs should be integrated in organizations. ‘Giving them a voice in decisions and legitimacy in influencing operating units, and developing internal processes for managing the value they create’ (Wenger et al, 2002). In previous concepts the group consists of people with a shared enterprise combined to improve their work through learning from others and (Wenger, 1991; 1998) and how to create new insights and therefore knowledge from others (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Earlier the CoPs where seen as autonomously formed learning centres in which the extraction of tacit knowledge would benefit the group members and eventually the organization. Cultivating CoPs as described by Wenger et al. (2002) is merely seen as a management-supporting tool that enhances the knowledge creation in large organizations. In other words an organization is able to form top-down CoPs in order to intentionally learn and share knowledge, rather than CoPs being autonomous and formed outside the organization borders because of the shared interests of individuals. The authors redefined the CoPs concept as: “Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an on-going basis” (Wenger et al, 2002). The meaning of a group is in this sense ambiguous and not comparable to how CoPs were characterized in previous work. Wenger et al. (2002) have formulated seven aspects that need to be considered in the attempt to cultivate CoPs.

(31)

2.2.4. Conclusion CoPs

Social knowledge networks like CoPs are more often acknowledged as central means to create, sustain, knowledge sharing but also to integrate knowledge in organizations (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Lesser & Storck, 2001; Zboralski, 2009). Bottom-up CoPs emerge naturally and should be managed by facilitating the emergent and continuity of CoPs. Although CoPs normally are self-realizing, organizations can intentionally cultivate top-down CoPs. Brown and Duguid (2001) argue that it is the role of organizations to influence CoP creation by on one hand supporting the development of such social construct and on the other hand by inspiring the changing practices between CoPs to configure.

2.3. Conditions for inter-CoPs knowledge sharing

In this paragraph the conditions that are needed in consultancy firms in their attempt to enable knowledge sharing through CoPs will be discussed. Knowledge sharing is considered to be a social construct (Van den Brink, 2001) and in literature there are three entities identified as key factors in knowledge sharing: people, organization and technology (Van den Brink, 2001; Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki, 2012, De Long & Fahey, 2000). Van den Brinks’ (2001) model updated with Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki (2012) its model are adapted as basis for the framework used in the process of identifying the enabling conditions in inter-CoPs knowledge sharing.

2.3.1. Inter-CoPs knowledge sharing

Enhancing knowledge exchange between different CoPs (both professional and organizational) with their differences and own domain requires more than just connecting multiple CoPs (Addicot et al., 2006) interaction and collaboration among the individuals is a requisite in the tacit knowledge sharing process (Gold et al., 2001). Knowledge sharing can both occur horizontally (within individual, group, communities and organizational levels) and vertically (among the levels) (Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki, 2012) distinguishing the knowledge sharing levels: intra-CoPs and inter-CoPs. Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki (2012) argue that intra-knowledge sharing is not sufficient as inter-knowledge sharing gives the opportunity to acquire “newer” knowledge across organizational boundaries. Their research was aimed on the knowledge sharing in organizations focusing on the different levels intra-as inter-knowledge sharing and proposed a model with the value of knowledge sharing over the different levels. Knowledge sharing between different levels is effective because each level results in learning outcomes, beginning from an individual to the CoP and the CoP itself with other CoPs leading to learning in other organizational levels (Nooshinfard &

(32)

Nemati-Anaraki, 2012). Connecting different CoPs will in this approach be viewed as connecting two different organizations due to the little literature regarding the inter-CoPs knowledge sharing. Organizations consist of individuals with a shared culture, strategy and type of business and different organizations are not easily connected due to the differences between individuals from different organizations. However making connections with other firms increases the organizations development (Tang et al, 2008) through the interactions that arise with other firms that can lead to newer or other insights (Mu et al, 2008), the linkage between individuals from different organizations is not easily established. Differences between individuals from different organizations is not only based on personality but on aspects such as: culture, shared language, and typical organizational responsibilities (Webber, 2002). These barriers could apply also to different CoPs with their own characteristics and identities. Inter-organizational knowledge sharing means that organizations are continuous interacting with other organizations which could lead to creation of opportunities, combination and recombination of ideas, integrate each other’s best practices, create new insights and understanding which leads to innovation, collective learning and results in organizational knowledge creation (Mu et al, 2008). Inter-knowledge sharing not only leads to interaction outcomes, it in addition provides timely access to new resources such as knowledge which were normally not available (Borgatti & Cross, 2003; Powell et al., 1996). In this study we adapted this proposed model and predicted two levels of knowledge sharing on CoP level: person-to-person KS (P2P = intra-CoPs) and CoP-to-CoP (C2C = inter-CoPs). The latter will be explored in this study and the CoP levels are illustrated in figure 5. Inter-organizational knowledge sharing creates knowledge sharing opportunities and strengthens co-learning capabilities that improves the creativity and idea exchange (Mu et al, 2008), firm capability improvements (Zahra et al., 2000; Szulanzki & Jensen, 2006) and the total organizational effectiveness and performance (Mu et al, 2008).

Knowledge sharing between communities of practice