The Key Components of Community of Practice Lead to Services Innovation - Coursework Example

Name: Professor: Institution: Course: Date: Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 2.0 Theoretical Background ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 2.1 Formation of Communities of Practice ---------------------------------------- 6 2.2 Stages of Development ---------------------------------------------------------- 8 2.3 Service Innovation --------------------------------------------------------------- 8 2.4 Importance of Community of Practice --------------------------------------- 12 2.5 Implications of Community of Practice -------------------------------------- 15 3.0 Factors of a Successful Community of Practice -------------------------------------- 16 3.1 The Individuals ------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 3.2 Motivation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 3.3 Social Presence ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 3.4 Collaboration --------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 4.0 Actions that Cultivate Community of Practice --------------------------------------- 18 5.0 Conclusion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 References ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 1.0 Introduction Etienne Wenger et.al, (2000) defined Community of practice as people who have been brought together as a result of their professional expertise and inner passion to excel in joint enterprises. The groups formed by the members are usually informal and they usually meet regularly to strategize on the way for instance front line managers working in a commercial bank, marketers who want to strategize on the best way to attract customers. The members do not meet to discuss a specific agenda but they rather prefer to discuss their own ideas and opinions in order to foster innovation exclusively. The discussions are normally free flowing which fosters creativity and decision making ideas. As a result the forum for discussion has born fruits because during the last five years the method has produced good output by enhancing the Organization performance of Companies such as the U.S Government agency and international car manufacturers who have continued to innovation different brands of cars. With these improvements we can derive the point that communities of practice help nature talent, assist in recruitment process, generate new lines of business and brands, drive strategy, solve critical problems and develop the promotion of best practice. (Etienne et.al, 2000) Jacky Swan et. al.,( 2002) affirmed to the discussion on community practice that it has played a key role in innovation promotion in major Organizations that have adopted the method. He defined community practice as an activity that members of a community share their views on what they do and exactly what contributions it has brought to their community thus they end up being united because of their actions. (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98) In contrast it has been found out that communities of practice may limit the flow of knowledge thus resulting to constraints in the organizational level related to innovation. (Brown et.al, 2001a) Innovation may at time be radical such that it disrupts the daily work activities in Organizations but they can only perform well in established work activities and groups. (Clark et al., 1989) Hence communities of practice may end up disrupting the radical innovations and act as a hindrance towards development. Such cases against and cases for community of practice have challenged scholars to derive measures on how to take advantage of the threats and turn them into opportunities. Thus Organizations can be relied on to implement community of practice. (Brown et.al, 2001b) Managers are today being encouraged to make maximum use of the available human capital within organizations to increase the development of innovation capacity. (Lesser et al, 2001) Hildreth et. al, (2000) defined Community of Practice as a group of professionals who are bound together informally as a result of being exposed to common problems and in their pursuit to find a solution they are bonded together because of their common knowledge. Thus we can derive and affirm the opinion that community of practice is the best way or avenue for professional business practitioners to share views and ideas of work practices related to their profession and discuss questions leading to solution of problems and general support in their expertise. Joining a group is so easy because you only require having work experience in a relative field or area to be a member of Communities of practice. 2.0 Theoretical Background Communities of practice can be traced back in the ancient times for instance in classical Greece “Corporations of masons and metal workers” had a common social and business function such that they would worshiped the same deities and trained Apprentices which brought up communities together. The communities in today’s markets differ slightly because they are found in identified large Organizations. The community structure was developed through participation of legitimate peripheral. Peripheral is more inclined towards social world identity and location (Lave, 1991) while legitimate participation define ways of community characteristics. Lave and wenger (1991) discovered that when new comers join a group they first of all observe what the other people’s roles were and how they worked before they even participated. For instance when an electrician wanted to learn from his peers he would first watch and learn before making any attempts to start any work and later he would start with small jobs then proceed to do the tough electrical jobs. This form was described by Lave and Wenger as legitimate peripheral participation. Hence the term Community of Practice is the group of members who have the desire to contribute and learn in the community through experience as they share a common interest. In his studies, Wenger (1998) later identified four dimensions that constitute community of practice which he stated as designed emergent, participation reification, local - global and identification negotiability that are management knowledge links. The Community of Practice structure constitutes of ‘repertoire that is shared’, ‘joint enterprise’ and ‘engagement that is mutual’. (Wenger 1998, pp 72-73) Lesser et al, (2001) argued that Communities of practice help foster innovation effectiveness and efficiency such that knowledge is created and shared among professionals for the improvement of community development. Brown et.al, (1991) affirmed that local invention is present in such arenas communities of practice go beyond helping to explain the relative “stickiness” of knowledge. The prevalence of community of practice has been delayed mainly because most Companies have yet to adopt the system in their management style, secondly though it has been in existence for centuries, it’s only recently that it was revealed in the business vernacular and thirdly it’s very difficult to introduce community of Practice in already existing Organizations that have formed an Organizational culture and group norms. However, there are managers out there who still are successful in the implementation of community of practice and their main role is bringing the right people together who share the same views and ideas thus the results are quite enormous. (Etienne, 2000) Robertson et. al,(1996) highlighted that communities of practice assisted in the constrain and constitution of intra and inter organizational networks through which knowledge is legitimized and acquired. Such networks allow the formation of formal and informal groups and as such are the focus of communities in practice. The formal and informal inter organizations have yet to be examined empirically although they are related to the literature in community practice of Organizations. Swan et. al, (1999) also affirmed that inter-organizational groups help in innovation and learning through the networks formed by professionals. Through practice practitioners are also able to form networks through newsletters, workshops, webpage’s, list serves and conferences. (Brown et.al, 2001a) 2.1 Formation of Communities of Practice Communities of Practice are formed in Organizations for reasons such as changes from outside the organization such as the rapid technological change and reorganization of a Company into team based structure. Therefore we can refer that communities of practice are found within Businesses. Secondly Communities of practice are found across business units where cross functional teams are present in business organizations. The team’s role is to strategize on the development of a business unit. Thirdly Communities of practice are found across Company boundaries especially in fast moving industries where the members have to be update with the rapid technological changes. (Etienne, 1998) The numbers of team members can range from ten to hundreds of people and they do not necessarily have to be from the same company. However the communities of practice work groups differ from formal and informal networks as well as project teams. For instance the purpose of community of practice is to exchange knowledge while the purpose of formal work group is to innovate and deliver a service or product and the informal group purpose is to listen to information from the external environment and deliver to the Business. The other contrast is in what ensures that the groups are held together because in community of practice the members are held together by their commitment plus passion while in a formal work group the members are bound together because it’s a job role mandated to them. Further a community of practice is different from a functional unit in that member’s development is determined by their own self understanding. In fact the organizational unit boundaries are not as flexible as the Community of Practice boundaries. Since members are free to participate in a community of practice group it creates an open avenue for knowledge enrichment and incomers as well as outsiders learn satisfactory from the people who are less engaged. A community of practice also differs from a network in that the identity that constitutes the binding is the community and members are engaged in the learning process. It is true that people who belong to Communities in Practice also belong to their Organizational structures and shape the Organization in their business units while in their networks they tend to form relationships. Members involved in team work are usually responsible for the team project while in their Communities of Practice they learn and develop knowledge that is used to perform all the other tasks. Thus the shared practices and information organizations assist in improving efficiency and effectiveness of the organization operations as a whole. (Etienne, 1998) 2.2 Stages of Development Etienne, (1998) divided the stages of Community of practice into five different sections of development. Stage one is referred to as the potential stage whereby people face the same challenges without the benefit of sharing what they know in their practice. The typical activity found in this stage is the discovery of one another. Stage two is referred to as Coalescing whereby members come together and are willing to discuss their potential and the activities found in this stage are exploration of their connectivity. Stage three is known as the active stage where members engage to develop their practice and they are involved in adapting to the changed circumstances and creation of artifacts. Stage four is referred to as the dispersed stage where by the members are not so engaged as at the beginning of the development but the community is still very focused and up to the task of innovation and knowledge center. Members are therefore just keeping in touch by holding reunions and seeking advice from one another. The final stage is the memorable stage whereby the community is no longer recognized as the centre stage but all the members do is remember the group as a memorable part of their lives and they are involved only in telling stories and preserving artifacts 2.3 Service Innovation Finland’s research agency attempted to define Service Innovation which is very critical to define according to majority of scholars. He referred it to a new concept that has been improved significantly for the benefit of the user. It could be a technological concept or a new way of communicating with customers. A service innovation is composed of only elements that can be replicated and reproduced in future. The innovated service product is usually the basis for competition with other key players in the same field and it serves to benefit both the manufacturer and the user or customer. Van Ark et al, (2003) described service innovation as a new concept that has been derived through change and comes either in form of service delivery system, technological advancement, client interaction channel or a combination of all and structurally require new organizational and technological capabilities of service Organization. His definition was more comprehensive because it included both the non-technological and technological innovation factors. Trisha et.al,(2004) defined innovation in service delivery and organization as the set of routine behaviors’ that aim at improving the cost and administration efficiency as well as improving health outcomes. Stephen (1998) differentiated the forces that constitute commercial innovation as forces of progression and market forces. The market forces constitute of income changes, market demographics and relative prices while the progression forces constitute of technological changes and scientific projections which involves innovation new productions or improvement of the existing products. Thus he argued that service innovation constitutes of technological and commercial factors. Stephen (1998) however defined innovation as the marketing of new products and services as well as the creation of new products and services which result in the prediction of innovation to be very unpredictable. This is because innovation involves a lot of changes which are unpredictable as to how the customers will respond to the changes. The greater the changes made to a service delivery or product the greater the unpredictability. It is however good to note that majority of the innovations introduced are as a result of the commercial contribution but as a result of the customers initiative. For instance in the U.S Patent Office the innovations recorded are as a result of commercial intervention and also Marquis (Moore and Tushman, 1982) recorded that out of 1800 innovations three quarters were introduced by market needs. Deborah, (2004) stated the challenges of innovation as strategy formulation and what should be organized to generate knowledge to start with. Innovation is more concerned with strategy development and consumers including market pressures are pushing firms to produce better and more convenient goods and services thus the community acts as a driver to service innovation. Service innovation should be unique in the sense that introducing new products as per client’s requests only brings about a variation instead of innovation. Services should therefore be systematically deployed to keep costs down even in the presence of strong competition and ensure quality is maintained. If innovation will be inclusive of major technological changes the improvements should relate to the needs and wants of the users regardless of the increase in costs which may arise as a result of the modifications. The success of innovation depends entirely on having the best combination of costs and performance as well as the introduction into the market, the timing should just be right to attract a higher market share. The choice of best combination depends entirely on the knowledge the supplier has on the prevailing market conditions. However, innovation can be disastrous as we relate to the most recent Aircraft Concorde which is an engineering achievement that is brilliant idea though the fuel consumption is almost 15 times more than the Boeing 747. The only positive advantage is that it can cross the Atlantic in half the required time of the Boeing 747. Another relevant example is solar energy which is reliable to many home users however it is yet to be adopted in electric power generation because of the costs factors. Den Hertog’s (2002) invented a model in the areas of innovation comprising of four service innovation dimensions which takes us to a totally different direction as per the theories described below: 1. Client Interface – The customer is more involved in the production of the service or product by giving specifications of what their needs and wants are for the particular service. Such that it’s simpler to describe the relationship as self service for the customers who particularly visit the supplier. Thus the innovation only involves the supplier and the customer. 2. Service Delivery System – The idea here is on delivery of the service only but it also involves the interaction of the customer and service delivery provider. For instance flowers delivery whereby the packaging and transport requires innovative ideas. 3. Service Concept – This describes a new concept of service that customers are not aware of its existence. Edvardsson, (1996) referred the service concept as a “proposition of new value”. Service innovations generally are not measureable but are intangible in description such as changing the format of a shop organization and innovation of new bank accounts. 4. Options in Technological Processes – These are mostly found in the manufacturing companies where new information technology is required to change the old systems of service delivery and implement the new innovative measures which reduce costs and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of processing information. For instance, the access of smart cards which are used in improving cash transactions operations. Den Hertog’s (2002) concluded that service innovation draws down to combination of one tracking their orders earlier made, examination of a client’s new service for the different options, electronic delivery of services such as ATM withdrawal, new IT system and the introduction of a new service often depends in changing to a new service delivery system. Miles, (2004) further researched and suggested six dimensions and the strong dimensions mentioned were user interface, cultural concept, cultural product and delivery. The link between Community of Practice and service innovation is clearly as a result of the achievements derived from brainstorming of members. Whenever a group of people discuss in a forum it is inevitable that the outcome or product expected is far beyond the members’ expectations. Since Community of Practice brings about solving of Problems quickly it means that a new or modified service and product has been innovated. 2.4 Importance of Community of Practice 1. New Business ventures – A group of consultants comprising of five to seven regularly met at O’ Hare Airport to discuss new clients’ business opportunities over a two year period and they eventually ended up attracting other people from different firms. Within four years of the group inception they had already created a new line of marketing for companies dealing with financial services. They held an annual conference that was attended by more than 190 people at New Orleans. The community was the source of strategy formulation and many clients were attracted as a result of the reputation made. 2. Professional skills development – effective learning is related to having peers who are willing to share their professional skills by acting as coaches or mentors to impact the knowledge they have to their peers. Research has indicated that apprentices learn more from advanced apprentices and journeymen as they do from craftsmen. In fact the most experienced neurosurgeon learn from their peers by reading reviewed journals, attending workshops which discuss new research solutions and accompany them in the research of new technological innovations techniques. IBM has adopted the Community of Practice method for innovation and the members normally hold annual conferences online and in person. Chat rooms and dinners are used as good avenues for discussion to build skills and develop networks. 3. Strategy Formulation – For many years Community of Practice has existed in the World Bank but the groups were fragmented and small. The World Bank management knowledge strategies are formulated from Communities in practice. World Bank made a desirable conclusion to fund Communities in Practice which increased the number of Organizations worldwide. The bank lends money by providing development expertise and hence the formed communities have overall resulted in improving the bank’s strategy formulation and direction. 4. Transfer of best Practices – Communities of Practice do not only solve problems but they help achieve best practices in an Organization and formation of a forum ideal for networking. Around 1990s Chysler reorganized the Company by division of the organization into functional departments for minivans and small cars. The leaders were pessimistic that they would lose touch of keeping up with the technological changes and as a result they formed communities of practice known as “tech clubs”. The tech clubs consisted of experts representing different platforms of cars manufacturing process. The research and development costs were reduced to a minimum and the cycle of manufacture reduced to almost half the initial assigned time. Even today the clubs regularly meet to discuss various stages of car development such as vehicle development, electronics, body design and eleven areas of product development. They normally set engineering standards and have developed a database which captures compliance with motor vehicle standards, best practices and specifications from suppliers. 5. Solution to problems – Community of practice helps solve problems quickly because the members know whom to ask questions and get solutions. For instance Buck man labs members have a group of members who specialize in responding to specific queries as their practice within twenty four hours. In the Pacific NorthWest a pulp mill customer had a query on dye retention and within a day experts from Canada, Europe and South Africa provided solutions and out of the three, one had provided the correct solution to the customer. 6. Recruitment and retaining of talent – America Management Systems discovered that Communities of Practice helped in retaining staff in their Organizations following invitations to attend forums of discussion and a consultant who planned to depart from the Company he was working in could not leave because members from the community developed a customized project for him to work on. In general out of six managers, at least one did overstay in their jobs after discovering that they would develop their skills and talents. 7. Social Capital – This is a concept that is multi –dimensional in nature with public and private facets. ( Putman, 2001) Social capital in generated for both the group and individual thus giving value to Community of Practice. When members dialogue from different parts of the global context and in the process get to share different opinions and ideas they form a close network of relationships by which they strongly rely on one another for support and social interaction even for other informal discussions. 8. Innovation - Majority of Communities of Practice are very beneficial to Organizations because when a group of individuals from different levels of expertise, experience and Organizations meet they are likely to develop the extra ordinary. Different concepts and capabilities provided through the members’ collaboration form the basis for innovation in terms of contribution and in the gesture to provide a solution to a problem (Swan et.al, 2002) 9. Incubation of critical thinking – Ideally members reflect on underlying principles by incubating their ideas to produce optimum results and suggestions. Individuals are exposed to brainstorming to improve the quality and effectiveness of solutions which enhances critical thinking for all members involved in Community development (Enrique, 2008) 2.5 Implications of Community of Practice Communities of Practice is referred by many as a means by which majority of the young peers in Universities do not appreciate. This is because the quality of professional research is daunting and the collaboration of individuals at various levels is very difficult. Secondly following the formation of a group the challenge remains in moving the members to participate in the community where they can practice according to their professions. By giving members a role in the society, it helps them link with broader educational community fanatics. ( Barab, 2000) Thirdly members may at times feel that they are losing their self generated or acquired knowledge though they are not compelled or forced to participate in any way. In future students should be encouraged to participate fully in research projects and help learners to connect with one another within the Community. A potential barrier to Community of Practice is discipline of members in a large group because people often change their behavior when in group as a result of influence. Also there is the likely hood that in the presence of familiar people all of the members know what the other person knows thus there is existence of the presence of transitive knowledge and tacit knowledge. Also where there is low motivation of members its very difficult to get collaboration, participation and flow of information. Shifting membership from one community to the other or from one Organization to the other distorts the meaning and essence of community development. Members of a Community may lack trust in another where the forum is carried out online, website or through magazines which fails to capture face to face interaction which consolidates group membership. 3.0 Factors of a Successful Community of Practice 3.1 The Individuals In organizations’ we find that training manuals are used to develop the employees skills while in contrast we find story telling is the process used to develop skills of members in the Community of Practice. Thus members are seen as reliable conduits of information generation. (Brown, 1991) In recent studies carried out, researchers have found that workers normally spend less than a third of the time looking for information and they are more likely to seek solutions from co-workers five times more than look for information on database or read from books. (Daveport, 2000) By seeking help from members of a Community of Service time is saved. The knowledge attributed with members of a community of service is hard to store and retrieve whenever required. This is because experience is what counts in decision making and problem solving which helps other members to avoid mistakes as well as reduce the length of time required to learn. Converting theory into practice is used to weight the level of optimal performance. The gap of knowing ‘how’ and ‘what’ helps the individual acts as a bridge between the communities of practice. ( Duguid, 2005) The information discussed in the community of practice has no bounds and members openly brainstorm on how to develop a project. Members of Community of Practice depend less on the geographic location as they communicate more with other professionals in knowledge generation. (Ardichvilli, 2003) 3.2 Motivation Studies have shown that members in Community of practice are motivated and become more active as they participate more because the knowledge is meant to benefit the general public and community. But motivation is observed as a critical factor in the success of Communities of Practice. Members can thus be motivated by use of bonuses, promotion, salary increase, job acknowledgement and increase of self esteem. 3.3 Social Presence Through communication of members of a group it promotes social presence. Tu,(2002) defined social presence as “the degree level of standing out during interaction of persons and the resultant most noticeable features of an interpersonal relationship”(p.38) The management of Communities of Practice often faces major challenges that hinders members from exchange of knowledge such as time constraints, poor egos, personal attacks and groups that are just overwhelming because of many members. ( Wasko, 2000) 3.4 Collaboration Without collaboration Communities of Practice would find it difficult to operate. ( Sveiby, 2002) Research has clearly established that in knowledge exchange forums there is a higher chance of collaboration in any business network. Also the higher the members are educated the more collaboration is favored. 4.0 Actions that Cultivate Community of Practice A community of practice success depends entirely on the objective or project that the members are carrying out. Wenger discussed some of the actions that would improve communities of practice as: creation of open dialogue avenue for both the internal and external members, and allowing different participation levels. The three levels of participation were identified as the peripheral group whose participants were passive, the core groups whose are very aggressive in participation within the community activities and finally the active group participates on regular terms. Another action is to naturally evolve the community design because members come from different backgrounds and they are likely to change as a result of different goals and interests. Focusing on the value of the community in terms of what members will derive from participating in the discussion. Communities of Practice offer an option of discussing in private because currently ideas are shared in public places. Room should be created so that discussions combine excitement and familiarity. Finally members of Community of Service should initiate events, programmes and activities whereby they regularly meet to move the Community intensity to another level. (Wenger, 2002) 5.0 Conclusion This discussion has highlighted the development of Community of practice, the actions to take in increasing the output of members within the community and the importance of the Community to the society. It is however evident that innovation is closely related to Community of Practice (CoP) in each and every aspect because for every innovation process there members who sit together as a group to discuss and strategize on a project the same way those members of CoP create a forum for discussion. In contrast, innovation is conducted to fulfill an Organization objectives or goals but the formation of CoP is brought about by the passion and commitment of experts. This shift in management approach by many Organizations is a strategic direction that has brought about innovation and networking of individuals. The rapid spread of technological innovation has attributed to the positive effects of service innovation and CoP delivery which has been adopted by firms to improve efficiency and effectiveness of Organization operations. The focus which has been on Community of Practice is meant to increase the awareness of the managers who are yet to embrace the practice which is beneficial in the long run. This is to say that significantly the approach of service innovation should mobilize external networks of professionals by forming Communities of Practice. This should not however be used overall as a standard basis procedure but as an approach to improvisation of radical strategy innovation process. Finally a learning community should ensure that members have at their disposal access to ICT skills so that they can implement e-based learning technology and get participation of as many members as possible. They may seem unfamiliar today but in a few years to come more and more Organizations will have adopted the process that is today jumpstarting the competitive environment. References Den Hertog, P. (Dec 2000), Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation, 4, International Journal of Innovation Management Edvardsson, B.; Olsson, J. (1996), Key concepts for New Service Development, 16, The Service Industries Journal, pp. 140–164 Edvardsson, B. (1997), "Quality in new service development: Key concepts and a frame of reference", International Journal of Production Economics (International Journal of Production Economics) 52 (2): 31–46 B.van Ark et al.,(2003)"Services Innovation, Performance and Policy: A Review" June, 2003, Research Series No6, The Hague Etienne C. Wenger et.al., (2000): Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and Identity. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press Jacky Swan et. al.,( 2002), Management Learning; The Construction of Communities of Practice in the Management of Innovation; Sage Publications, London. Lave J. and Wenger, 1991: 98: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press Brown J.S et.al, (2001a), Knowledge and Organisation: A social Practice perspective; 198-213. Sage Publications. London Clark P.et al., (1989); Anglo- American Innovation. New york: De Gruyeter Lesser E. et al, (2001); ‘Using Communities of Practice to manage Intellectual Capital’’; Ivey Business Journal: 37-41 Brown J.S et.al, (2001b); Managing Industrial Knowledge. Pp 44-67. Sage Publications. London Fox, S. (2000); “Communities of Practice and Actor – network theory”. Journal Of Management Studies 37(6): 853-67 Hildreth, Paul; Kimble, Chris (2000). Knowledge Networks: Innovation through Communities of Practice. London / Hershey: Idea Group Inc. Robertson M,et. al,(1996): The role of professional Associations in the diffusion of Technological Innovations’, Journal of Management studies: 333-66 Miles, I (July/August 1993). “ Services in the New Industry Economy”, Futures 25(6): 653-672 Miles I. (2001) Services Innovation: A Reconfiguration of Innovation Studies (University of Manchester: PREST discussion paper DP01-05 Miles Ian (2004) Service Innovation a book chapter in Fagerberg et al. (Eds.) (2004), Ox ford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press Trisha G.et.al,(2004): Diffusion of Innovation in Service Organizations. Systematic review and Recommendations. University College London. University of Surrey Lave & Wenger (1991, p. 29). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..; first published in 1990 as Institute for Research on Learning report 90-0013 Davenport, Thomas H.; Prusak, Lawrence (2000). Working knowledge. How organizations manage what they know, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Duguid, Paul (2005). "The Art of Knowing: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice". The Information Society (Taylor & Francis Inc.): 109–118 Ardichvilli, Page & Wentling (2003) "Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing in communities of practice". Journal of knowledge management 7 (1): 64–77 Tu, Chih-Hsiung (2002). "The management of social presence in an online learning environment". International Journal on E-learning April–June: 34–45. Wasko, M.; Faraj, S. (2000). ""It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice". Journal of Strategic Information Systems (2-3): 155–173 Sveiby, Karl-Erik; Simon, Roland (2002). "Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work - an empirical study". Journal of Knowledge Management 6 (5): 420–433. Wenger, Etienne; McDermott, Richard; Snyder, William M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice (Hardcover). Harvard Business Press; 1 edition.` Enrique Murillo (2008); “Searching Usenet for virtual communities of practice: using mixed methods to identify the constructs of Wenger's theory” Vol.13No. 4, Mexico City Barab S.A (2000): From Practice Fields to Communities of Practice. Theoretical foundations of learning environment (25-55). Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erl Baum Associates. Stephen J. Kline (1986): An overview of Innovation. Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. The National Academy of Sciences. Ozdemier, S. (2007): E-Learning effects on knowledge. Retrieved on 31st August 2011 from www.blackwell synergy.com/action. Putnam, Robert (2001). "Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences". ISUMA (spring): 41–51. Read More