FACILITATING A KNOWLEDGE NETWORK: THE ROLE OF COMMUNITIES OF
PRACTICE
A Thesis by
Pin Pin Schunk
Bachelor of Science, Wichita State University, 1994
Submitted to the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
and the faculty of the Graduate School of
Wichita State University
In partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
July 2013
© Copyright 2013 by Pin Pin Schunk
All Rights Reserved
FACILITATING A KNOWLEDGE NETWORK: THE ROLE OF COMMUNITIES OF
PRACTICE
The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content,
and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Science, with a major in Industrial Engineering.
Don Malzahn, Committee Chair
Dr. Jim Wolff, Committee Member
Dr. Lawrence Whitman, Committee Member
iii
ABSTRACT
Today, sophisticated consumers drive an organization’s market share.
They demand
timely innovation and challenge an organization’s capacity to manage its competencies.
Communities of Practice (CoPs) harvest and disperse the competencies and innovative synergy
that reside in an organization’s knowledge reservoirs.
The theory of CoPs as a knowledge
network requires quantitative measurement to enhance its effectiveness and sustainability.
This research seeks to validate this knowledge generating mechanism by first, examining
a CoP through a functional decomposition process model (IDEF0-Integration Definition for
Function Modeling). Second, by developing a “Cultivate a CoP” assessment scale and finally,
validating the scale of “Cultivate a CoP”.
This is an exploratory pilot study with a first attempt
to quantify the CoP.
The “Cultivating a CoP” scale is a Likert 5-point six-dimension survey that assesses the
validity and reliability of the CoP scale.
The results demonstrates four (4) of the six (6)
constructs have significant internal reliability at p = .05. The significant constructs with rank of
reliability strength are Convey domain, Align vision, Share expertise and Grow trust while
Motivate participants and Build artifacts did not demonstrate internal reliability.
The six
dimensionality of the scale is challenged with significant correlation between Align vision with
Build artifacts and Convey domain.
The quantitative metaphor for the CoP theory that seeks to validate “Cultivate a CoP”
scale enhances the understanding of abstract inter-relationships among the constructs (latent
attributes). The resulting correlations through factor analysis will justify and enhance a CoP’s
sustainability. A healthy and sustainable CoP improves problem-solving synergy because of an
increased capability for change management and knowledge production.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
5
3.
4.
Data, information and information technology (IT)
Knowledge
Knowledge economic / market
Encultured Knowledge and Practice Language
Manage Change and Produce Knowledge
Social Learning System (SLS)
Community of practice (CoP)
Value of CoP
Boundaries Process
Identities
Life cycle of a CoP
Operating structure and mechanisms of a CoP
Organizational Competency of Problem Solving
Cultivating a Community of Practice (CoP) scale
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
RESEARCH METHODS
21
Research Design for “Cultivating a CoP” scale
Construct definition and content domain
Generating and consolidating measurement items
IDEF0
ICOMs and constructs
Content validation
Summary of constructs and indicators
Survey set up and design
Conducting studies to develop and refine the scale
Sample size and population
Factor analysis
22
22
23
23
25
26
26
31
32
32
32
RESULTS
34
Data set
Research question
Participants’ involvement levels
Survey results for Wichita Chapter of APICS and Wichita Chapter of
SWE
34
35
35
v
36
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
5.
6.
Page
Data analysis
SPSS correlation analysis
Finalizing the scale
37
38
42
DISCUSSSION, LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
44
Theoretical implication
Practical implication
Limitation
Future research
44
44
45
46
CONCLUSIONS
48
BIBLIOGRAPHY
49
APPENDICES
55
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
Mind Map for Documenting Results of Literature Reviews
Initial Item Pool of Cultivating a CoP
Finalized Item Pool of Cultivating a CoP
IDEF0 Process: Viewpoint, Purpose and System Analysis Questions
The Circular Organic View of the Finalized ICOMs
IDEF0 – Glossary
Screen Shot of First Page of the Google® On-Line Survey
Sample Letter of Request for Survey Distribution and Participation
Layout of On-Line Survey Introduction and Purpose
Links to Google® “Cultivating a CoP” On-Line Surveys
The Survey of “Cultivating A Community of Practice”
Pearson Correlations and Two-Tailed P-Value of APICS Survey Results
Between and Within Correlation Analysis for APICS Survey Results
Questionnaires with Abbreviation
vi
56
55
58
59
60
61
72
73
74
75
76
80
81
82
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Summary of Constructs and Indicators
27
2.
Constructs and Questionnaires
34
3.
Participant Involvement Classifications and Count for APICS and
SWE Survey Participation Rate
35
4.
Survey Results from Wichita Chapter of APICS
36
5.
Survey Results from Wichita Chapter of APICS
37
6.
The Average Within (Internal) Correlation of APICS Survey Results
39
7.
R-Matrix -Average Between Correlations Among the Six “Cultivate
CoP” Constructs
39
8.
Pearson Correlation Between Participant Level (Pl) and Other
Indicators
41
9.
Evaluation of Non-Reliable Indicators
42
10.
Evaluation of Dimensionality
43
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
A Virtual Community of Practice Where Multiple CoPs Intercept
14
2.
The Life Cycle of a CoP
17
3.
Messy Problem Resides Outside the Boundaries of the CoP
19
4.
SA Box of IDEF0 with Input, Control, Output and Mechanism
(ICOM)
24
5.
IDEF0 Model - A1 Cultivating a CoP
25
6.
Percent by Members’ Involvement Category
36
7.
A-0 Diagram: Initiate Social Learning System
61
8.
Emerged Boundary Where Different Disciplines Intercept
65
9.
A0 Diagram: Construct Social Learning System
69
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / NOMENCLATURE
APICS
Association of Operations Management
AV
Align Vision
BA
Build Artifacts
CD
Convey Domain
CoP
Community of Practice
EFA
Exploratory Factor Analysis
ES
Effect Size
GT
Grow Trust
ICOM
Input. Control, Output, Mechanism
IDEF0
Integration Definition for Function Modeling
IT
Information Technology
KM
Knowledge Management
MP
Motivate Participant
PL
Participation Level
SA
Structure Analysis
SADT
Structured Analysis and Design Technique
SE
Share Expertise
SLS
Social Learning System
SSA
System Structure Analysis
STV
Subjects To Variable
vCoP
Virtual Community of Practice
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
An organization who
attains an effective knowledge-sharing process achieves a
breakthrough competitive advantage (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). This thesis studies communities
of practice (CoP) that gather human intellect to enhance knowledge dissemination (Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, Cultivating communities of practice, 2002).
A nurtured and cultivated
CoP can optimize its functionality and productivity.
1.1
Background
Drucker claimed that a fundamental need for management is to increase the efficiency of
knowledge management (KM) and production (Drucker P. , 1999).
This need prompted a
knowledge management (KM) boom with extensive studies to search for a knowledge mining
mechanism that enables knowledge sharing, learning and creating (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
The history of KM reveals three different phases.
The first phase was the rush to use information technology (IT) to capture data and
information. The second phase focused on the issues of behavior, culture and tacit knowledge.
Now, the third phase realizes the social power of how a CoP can preserve and produce new
knowledge (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, Cultivating communities of practice, 2002). This
trend is consistent with the knowledge market that becomes a key resource for business survival.
Within a Social Learning System (SLS), learning simulates as a knowledge market where there
are buyers, sellers and brokers.
The knowledge market depends on the experience and know-how of employees that is
embedded in routines and practices to produce valuable products and services (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998). This knowledge is mainly tacit. It is unarticulated and unknown to others. It
1
resides within individuals or teams.
Through the communicative collaboration of players within
the market, the unarticulated tacit knowledge became explicit.
Communities of practice (CoPs) thrive on knowledge and foster effective learning and
continuous improvement. A key capability of a CoP is to capture tacit knowledge (Hildreth &
Kimble, 2004).
The knowledge facilitating effort is structured upon CoPs. The theory of CoPs
emulates a master-apprentice and situated social learning system.
1.2
Problem
A quantitative measurement of CoP does not exist. Extensive research has attempted to
mine the inner working of CoPs, but the specific mechanisms remain mostly a theoretical ideal.
A CoP is a complex knowledge-based community that is poorly understood (Nousala & Hall,
2008). The validation of the theory of CoP is only restricted to field observation. The lack of a
quantitative scientific measurement hinders the assessment and growth of a CoP.
This study has three obstacles: first, No functional model of a CoP; second, No
measurement scale for CoP; third, No validated constructs of CoP. The theory of a CoP is only
validated through field observation. The scientific validation of a CoP remains unchecked.
1.3
Purpose
The theory of CoP requires scientific validation. A “Cultivate a CoP” scale will help by
filling the gap to quantify the theory of CoPs that claims to facilitate a knowledge network.
However, only the validated measurements for the underlying phenomena (latent constructs) can
reflect the observed relationships and the desired relationships between the unobservable
variables behind the theory (DeVellis, 2003). The reliable and validated measurements of
“Cultivate a CoP” will augment the efficiency of KM and production.
This thesis delivers a
constructive “Cultivate a Community of Practice” functional model and an exploratory
2
“Cultivate a Community of Practice” measuring scale.
1.4
Scope
The sample population of this study is limited to cross industrial professional
communities.
this study.
The insignificant sample size has restricted of the power of the developed scale of
The finalized scale of “Cultivate a Community of Practice” is an exploratory pilot
sample. Next iteration of questionnaires evaluation is required to complete the scale.
1.5
Audience
Knowledge practitioners, Knowledge managers, Collaborative problem solvers, Project
managers, Knowledge networkers, Enterprise modelers and Scale developers.
1.6
Methodology
The strategy to develop a “Cultivate a CoP” scale includes: 1. Develop a functional
model of a CoP, 2. Define latent constructs and indicators of CoP, 3. Develop “Cultivate a
CoP” online survey, 4. Conduct online survey, 5. Scaling factor analysis (reliability and
dimensionality of CoP scale), and 6. Finalize the scale.
and scale are produced.
A “Cultivate a CoP” functional model
They made it possible to quantify the intangible attributes of a CoP.
Thus, a CoP theory is scientifically validated.
1.7
Overview
This research paper begins with a chapter of literature review of how to access and
preserve knowledge as well as a multiple definition of “Knowledge” and knowledge acquisition
process. That leads to exploration of a social learning system and Community of Practice (CoP)
and its functionalities.
Next chapter is the research methods that include the study of the design of scale
development and enterprise modeling with a functional decomposition of a CoP.
3
Content
analysis and validation are done through an IDEF0 model. It concludes with a survey set up and
design with the analysis of sample size, sample population and factor analysis.
The second half of the paper includes results, discussion, limitation, future research and
conclusion.
The results section includes data and correlation analysis from SPSS.
dimensionality and scale of the questionnaires are evaluated.
The
The implications of this research
include a systematic and accessible functional model of “Cultivate a CoP” model and an
exploratory scale of “Cultivate a CoP”. This is a significant milestone to achieve a quantifiable
CoP that could enhance the sustainability of knowledge productivity effort.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The systems of this study refer to an intra-organization network that depicts a withinorganization multi-channel communications network. The network is a cross-functional process
integration within the organization (Morash & Clinton, 1998). Effective network collaboration
enhances learning. In the field of organizational management, a learning organization (Senge,
2006) traditionally is defined as a management strategy that facilitates acquisition and
dissemination of knowledge (Blackman & Henderson, 2001). In this paper, the learning is
through situated learning and meaning negotiation. It emphasizes practice or doing (Blackley,
1995) and linguistic socialization (Collins H. , 2011) to access knowledge. Huber referred to
knowledge as a more complex product of learning (Huber, 1991).
This section explores the current state of KM and three major attempts to answer the call
for knowledge productivity. As Drucker claimed, the most valuable asset of the 21st century is
knowledge. In order to handle “knowledge” effectively, its characteristic must be evaluated. The
facilitating
efforts
of
KM
include
mining
data
with
information
technology,
studying
organizational behavioral and cultural issues, and engaging socially defined communicative
network. This led to the exploration of a socially defined “practicing” and “learning” knowledge
processes. The concept of CoP emerges out of this effort along with the theory of problemsolving efficacy.
The literature review begins with an overview of knowledge study from different
perspectives. The effectiveness of knowledge creation processes is assessed. The emergent
outcome is a social learning system (SLS) where CoP is the operating structure. Finally, the
CoP’s foundations, operative mechanisms and the life cycle are evaluated.
5
2.1
Data, information and information technology (IT)
It is critical to distinguish knowledge from data and information, although it relates to
both. Without the clear understanding of how to differentiate among them, organizations can
hamper the knowledge management (KM) effort. “Data is a set of discrete, objective facts about
events. In an organizational context, data are most usefully described as structured records of
transaction.” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. 2). It suggests no relevance or purpose (Drucker P.
F., 1967). It can be easily captured by technology and is the raw material for information. With
added judgment, interpretation and action, it transforms into information.
Information adds meaning to data, and it has a sender (creator) and a receiver. Davenport
and Prusak described five different channels to transform data into information: Contextualized:
the purpose; Categorized: the units of analysis or key components; Calculated: the mathematical
or statistical analysis; Corrected: the removal of errors; and Condensed: the summarization.
Technology such as the computer software can add structure value to data, but humans are still
the key factor in this transformation process (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
The lack of humanity in computer information technology diminished the promise that IT
is the Cupid of KM. Computer systems can search through a complex and sizable database to
collect terabytes of data. The collected data can also quickly become a digital junk yard
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998) if human assets in the organization do not know how to use it
effectively and efficiently. Organizations are usually not equipped with the skills to effectively
design and manage the harvested data stream that IT supplies. The missing link to make sense of
an individual data stream is the context that the machines are not capable of providing (Devlin &
Rosenberg, 1996).
The human’s decoding and interpretive skill is the concept of semiotics as Charles S.
Peirce (1839-1914) originally coined it. Its context dwells within the informal organization
6
layers – the language and the culture (the signs, objects and norms) (Deely, 1990). The human in
the organization owns the information. With the information, human enable and interpret those
informal organization layers. This interpretive capability threads the association between object
and sign (data and needs) to create understanding. For example, the ability to associate the word
house with the object of the house can only be established when the concept of the house exists
(Stamper, Liu, Hafkamp, & Ades, 2000). This is learning or knowledge acquisition process.
2.2
Knowledge
People know more than what they can articulate (Polanyi, 1966); (Wenger, McDermott,
& Snyder, 2002). Polanyi classified knowledge as explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge can be
articulated in formal language such as grammatical statements, mathematical expressions, rules,
manuscript, etc. It can be transmitted across individuals formally and easily. But, tacit
knowledge is hard to articulate with formal language. It is personal and embedded in individual
experience.
Tacit knowledge is acquired and learned. From the cognitive psychological perspective,
learning is the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). According to
the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, cognitive psychology is defined as “a branch of
psychology concerned with mental processes (such as perception, thinking, learning, and
memory) especially with respect to the internal events occurring between sensory stimulation
and the overt expression of behavior” Invalid source specified.. The personal internal events are
the hard to articulate tacit experience. It is a learning process that can be classified into two
categories: internalization and externalization (Nonaka & Krogh, 2009). The end results are
externalized and internalized knowledge.
Externalized knowledge is explicit knowledge. It can be codified into documents and
7
tools. Internalized knowledge is tacit knowledge. It involves intangible factors such as personal
belief, perspective, and the value system. Therefore, it is a critical component of collective
human behavior (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), and it can influence the quality of a knowledge
acquisition processes.
The cognitive acquisition processes of knowledge can also be correlated to the study of
language and the study of symbols (Semiotics).
Semiotics is the study of signs and norms. A
sign is an artifact that has specific meaning to the community, and a norm is a generalized
conception in the world shared by members of a community (Stamper, Liu, Hafkamp, & Ades,
2000). Signs induce the production of norms.
In a community, norms will dictate “how members behave, think, make judgments and
perceive the world” (Stamper, Liu, Hafkamp, & Ades, 2000, p. 15). The shared norms define an
organization’s culture and sub-culture.
organization.
The organizational culture is the informal structure of an
It prescribes how meaning is interpreted and defined.
Thus, it also affects the
quality and effectiveness of knowledge acquisition process. In the next section, knowledge is
explored from an economical value system perception.
2.2.1
Knowledge economic / market
“Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and
expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information.
It originates and applies in the minds of knowers.
In organizations, knowledge
often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational
routines, processes, practices, and norms” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. 5).
This is the
definition of “Working Knowledge” to which this thesis refers.
Davenport and Prusak argued that organizations need an “insight” such as the best
8
practices or new innovative processes that information cannot provide. They suggested that in
every organization, knowledge inhabits in an economic market where there are knowledge
buyers, sellers, and brokers. This knowledge is usually not accessible when needed because the
markets are not operated efficiently.
They are “unrecognized, disorganized and local”
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Organizations do not possess the knowledge until they know and
use it. Only then, it is accessible and ready to emerge with knowledge productive synergy.
In the knowledge market system, the pattern of sustainable knowledge movements dwells
within the corporate culture.
people (Semiotics).
The culture affects the behavior of how things are done by its
An organization is composed of people who know how to do things
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
Thus, it collects intellectual capital. Business enterprises need to
mine what they know collectively as well as to effectively acquire and use knowledge in a timely
manner to sustain competitive advantage.
The following section presents a different granularity
of knowledge as compared to Polanyi’s explicit and tacit knowledge.
2.2.2
Encultured Knowledge and Practice Language
Blackley and Collins (Blackley, 1995); (Collins H., 1993).
structured knowledge in five
different categories. It is assumed that knowledge dwells in bodies, routines, brains, dialogue and
symbols. The following are the categories: 1. Embrained knowledge – the conceptual skills and
cognitive abilities; 2. Embodied knowledge – the action oriented, physical presence and practical
thinking (problem-solving techniques). It can be related to “situated learning”; 3. Encultured
knowledge – the shared understandings and realizations through socialization and acculturation.
It is language dependent; 4. Embedded knowledge – the systematic routines that are analyzable
and relational. Organizational capabilities are embedded knowledge; 5. Encoded knowledge –
the information conveyed by signs and symbols. It can be codified.
9
This research will not elaborate on the well-known epistemologies - Plato’s and
Aristotle’s contemplation of knowledge as “a justified true belief”. Instead, the complex
knowledge acquisition processes of perception, communication, association and reasoning
(negotiation) will be studied (Nonaka & Takeuchi, The knowledge-creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, 1995). It is part of the socialization and
acculturation process. The “working knowledge” known as the pragmatic description of
knowledge in an organization (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) is born out of the encultured
knowledge. It is tacit and will be the type of knowledge that concerns this study.
Encultured knowledge is a process of realizing through socialization and acculturation.
Within this enterprise, language (words and domain language) and negotiation of meaning is the
core of mastering a specific domain practice. Blackley echoed Lave’s theory that knowledge is
not what we have but what we do (Lave, The practice of learning, 1993) (Blackley, 1995). The
do encompasses the social practice of domain language interaction (Collins H. , 2011).
Nonaka (1994) reflected that knowledge creation is the dynamic interaction of language
and
communication.
“Linguistic
socialization” is
a
key
to
the
success of “practical
understanding” (Collins H. , 2011). In order to be successful in the current world view, managers
must equip themselves with the encultured knowledge achieved through shared understanding
(Blackley, 1995). The next section will introduce the concept of how the productivity of
knowledge can augment the effort of change management.
2.3
Manage Change and Produce Knowledge
Today, the true differentiator among players in a given market is an organizations’ ability
to “manage change” and “produce knowledge”. What encompasses the terms “manage change”
and “produce knowledge”? They include the collaboration of different functional units within the
10
enterprise to solve problem, diffuse know-how, produce language, attain knowledge flow, create
new knowledge (practice), and apply the newly emerged knowledge. It takes time to do all of the
above. Time is the critical dominant factor. The shorter the response time of managing change
successfully, the better the synergy of the enterprise.
(
)
The effectiveness of change management will be affected by the enterprise’s problemsolving capabilities. Polanyi stated that problem-solving efficiency is directly influenced by
“human expertise” – tacit knowledge. It is a skilled routine that cannot be detailed in the script;
therefore it is best delivered from a master to an apprentice (Polanyi, 1966, pp. 49-53).This is
aligned with the concept of encultured knowledge where integration and doing are the keys to
acquire knowledge. A Community of Practice (CoP) emulates the master-apprentice situated
learning system. The following section will expand on a social learning system (SLS) that fosters
a CoP.
2.4
Social Learning System (SLS)
Etienne Wenger defines SLS as an interactive system of knowledge, community, learning
and identity. They are bound together through members’ participation. It is structured as a triad
reaction of participation through a CoP, boundary processes and members' identities (Iverson &
McPhee, 2008). The learning is grounded on the cognitive knowledge acquisition process
through socially defined competence (explicit) and personal experience (tacit) (Wenger, 2000).
Jane Lave and Etienne Wenger, pioneers of situated learning and CoPs, advocated that
learning takes place when there is a dynamic conflict between competence and personal
experience (Lave & Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, 1991). The
socially defined competence is restricted by how the community defines it, for example, how to
act so you will be accepted as a competent member. Within a CoP, the knowing, learning, and
11
sharing are part of the belonging that members learn through by participating in the exchange of
experiences. The participants’ belonging experience also grows as their trust takes root.
The three approaches that members can enhance their belonging experience or trust are
engagement, imagination and alignment (Wenger, 2000). Engagement is doing things together
and producing community artifacts such as specific vocabularies, unarticulated custom, symbols
of membership and etc. Imagination is the image of ourselves in the community and it affects
how we interpret the external environment (world). Alignment is the appropriate association with
other processes or people for effective interactional management. These three modes both bound
and promote the three interactional structure elements (CoP, boundary processes and identities)
of a SLS. The following section will discuss each of the SLS structural elements.
2.4.1
Community of practice (CoP)
Our definition of a Community of Practice (CoP) is: “A Community of Practice (CoP) is
a network of motivated people (community) bound together with a shared common interest or
issue (domain) who routinely collaborate to share expertise, to produce artifacts (practice) and
to increase know-how that aligns with a shared vision (purpose).”
CoPs are matrix- like organizations where members have multiple reporting relationships
for different purposes or functions to accomplish the institutional goals. Members wear two hats.
As members of teams or functional groups, they are accountable to perform the assigned tasks
and report to authority; but as members of a community, they are accountable to develop a
practice or a passion and contribute their experience or expertise and receive help for their issues.
Within the community, they manage their own knowledge. They are not accounted for by a
distributed reporting authority: even the community leaders are their peers. This informal
structure is its fundamental difference from the formal matrix business structure (Wenger,
12
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
2.4.2
Value of CoP
The following is the value or abiliy of CoP among organization structures (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998):
1.
Connect network of local expertise and isolated professionals,
2.
Solve recurring enterprise problems that span across multiple team or domain
boundaries,
3.
Assess performance across units perform similar functions to enhance
performance standard,
4.
Link and coordinate remote activities and initiatives by addressing a similar
knowledge domain.
CoPs focus on domain of knowledge or interest (common concern/issue) and connect
people from different functional units who might be participating in the related projects. In a fast
transient knowledge economy, CoPs provide an essential stability for members. Job and project
assignments can be changed, but the professional expertise provided by CoPs is unchanged. It
can grow with participating practitioners for the rest of their careers (Wenger, McDermott, &
Snyder, 2002). Ultimately, a CoP is a network of people working together to engage, share and
negotiate valuable specific domain knowledge harnessed by individuals or groups (Wenger,
1998); (Borzillo, Aznar, & Schmitt, 2011). CoPs facilitate an organization’s ability to learn and
innovate by relentlessly developing its members and creating the shared and emerged knowledge
(Schenkel & Teigland, 2008).
Experience and competence are the key resources that a motivated participant
accumulates and grows within a CoP to forge emerged knowledge. The shared practices of the
13
communities are defined through members’ experience and competence. They are also
recognized and addressed through active learning initiation, gap identification as well as
emergent learning directions and opportunities. By closing the gaps and addressing the
opportunities, the emerged knowledge is reaped. It is critical to recognize that the gaps and
opportunities identification process takes place at the boundaries of CoPs by the integration of
community artifacts (Wenger, 2000).
2.4.3
Boundaries Process
The boundary of a CoP is different from the traditional definition of organization
boundary that is lacking affiliation and implies limitation. Rather, it is fluid and very accessible
to its members. It is defined by shared practices and domain knowledge (Wenger, 2000). It could
be defined as the comfort zone for domain knowledge practicing, sharing and creating. Different
disciplines create their own set of boundaries through different ways of interaction with one
another because of different experiences, histories, communication and capabilities.
A virtual community of practice (vCoP) is where multiple boundaries of CoPs intercept,
Figure 1 (Malzahn, 2011). At vCoP, different boundaries intercept with each other, and learning
is at the peak (a conflict of competencies and personal experiences). The new experience is
introduced, and participants’ competencies are challenged. At this crossing of multiple
boundaries emerges a new boundary for a new CoP (Wenger, 2000).
Figure 1. A virtual Community of Practice where multiple CoPs intercept
14
The emerged boundaries are born from the boundary process where new and unfamiliar
experience and competence are resolved. This is where problems are recognized and resolved. It
includes multiple domain knowledge interaction. It is at this emerged boundary that the newly
emerged opportunities and capabilities provide the competitive advantage with responsive and
adaptive power to change. It generates new practices in new environments (Furlong & Johnson,
2003).
2.4.4
Identities
"Identity: A way of viewing how learning changes who we are and creates a sense of
belonging to a community. Learning is the process that transforms us from a learner to a knower.
What we learn affects our attitudes and our attitude informs how we engage in our practice and
the world" (Furlong & Johnson, 2003, p. 105).
Author Etienne Wenger argues that knowing contributes to belonging and our identities
shape the foundation of how we know. We are capable of defining ourselves by what we are not,
as well as by what we are, and by the communities, we do not belong to as well as by the ones
we do. We also move from community to community (practice to practice), hence the multimembership is part of how we identify ourselves (Wenger, 2000). For example, one can be
identified as a mother, an engineer and a civic worker.
Identity is a crucial component of a CoP because identities combine competence and
experience into a way of knowing. Our ability to suspend and engage our identities defined how
productive we are in boundary negotiation. A successful boundary process bridges multiple
communities through our experience with multiple disciplines or domain knowledge (Wenger,
2000). An effective CoP breeds productive boundary processes. In order to sustain that efficacy,
it is crucial to understand the CoP operating structure and working mechanisms.
15
2.4.5
Life cycle of a CoP
This research attempts to provide a roadmap to cultivate a CoP by developing a CoP
measuring scale.
Cultivation effort includes the ability to assess a CoP maturity and life cycle.
During each stage, different injections are required to enhance the synergy of a CoP. It also
helps knowledge practitioners interpret the results of measuring scale because at different stage
of life cycle there are different needs.
Figure 2 illustrates the 5Is (Initiate, Immerse, Increase,
Include and Iterate) life cycle of a CoP (Cambridge, Kaplan, & Suter, 2005); (McDermott,
2000). The 5Is maturity life cycle stages includes:
1.
Initiate: A process of inquiring needs, audience sample, purpose and vision.
2.
Immerse:
A process of relationship and value building.
Core group is formed.
Leadership is charged. Value for joining is generated.
3.
Increase: A process of exposing knowledge and soliciting practice. Relationships
are established.
4.
Include:
Community members appreciate the reciprocal contributions and
learning.
Active members develop keenness to collective ownership of
the practice. New ideas are received.
5.
Iterate:
A stage where a community either die or pick up new momentum to
reiterate the “Initiate” stage.
The legacy of a CoP can evolve with change of organization needs and vision. A CoP
measuring scale can guide the CoP maturity assessment. The health of a CoP is viable.
16
Figure 2 The life cycle of a CoP
2.5
Operating structure and mechanisms of a CoP
The CoP’s operating structure includes domain, community and practice (Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). The domain is the common ground (the topic) and a sense of
common identity. A well-defined domain affirms its purpose and value to members or
participants. Community is built upon mutual respect and trust. They encouraged members to
learn and inquire by sharing and exposing experience as well as ignorance and listening to each
other. It is a socially defined learning by belonging. The practice (specific knowledge cultivates,
shares and retains by the CoP) consists of “a set of frameworks, ideas, tools, information, styles,
language, stories, and documents that community members share.” (Wenger, McDermott, &
Snyder, 2002, p. 29).
Iverson and McPhee (2008) unlocked the internal operating process of a CoP by
identifying its inner working mechanisms. A CoP is a dynamic system coupled with a distinctive
communicative enactment that enables conscious social interaction and knowledge construction.
17
The CoP internal operating mechanisms include mutual engagement (community), shared
repertoire (domain) and negotiation of a joint enterprise (practice) (Wenger, 1998). Its network
of communicative webs is the foundation for the CoP to grow as well as generating members’
commitment, skill and “know-who”- who possesses the domain knowledge (Iverson & McPhee,
2008).
The following provides the explanation of the mechanisms. First, mutual engagement is
the root for the different levels of communication and interaction. It establishes the boundary for
a CoP. Within the boundary, the common domain of interest is reinforced and various supplies of
knowledge are provided. Second, the shared domain is a common set of situations, problems, and
perspectives (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Third, the joint practice includes
knowledge, capabilities and artifacts such as a community’s specific vocabulary, unarticulated
customs, symbols of membership identification, and unique indications for the problem and
solution identification (Schenkel & Teigland, 2008). In addition, a shared practice entails a
common set of tasks or activities that enable members to develop relationships and influence or
control knowledge. The negotiation of such practice at various levels is a communicative process
that nurtures mutual trust and enhances members’ commitment (Iverson & McPhee, 2008).
2.6
Organizational Competency of Problem Solving
The globalized consumer-driven market is more complex and cost-sensitive with shorter
product life cycles (Ptak & Smith, 2011). Organizations that master a constructive knowledgesharing process can contribute with a productivity advantage (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). In return,
constructive knowledge reduces complexity and cost as well as shortens the time of introducing
new products to market. This phenomenon is justified by the increase of organizational
competency of problem solving (von Hippel, 1994).
18
Problem-solving capabilities are heightened in a virtual community of practice (vCoP)
where multiple communities of practice (CoPs) intersect (Malzahn, 2011), refer to Figure 1.
Messy problem solving typically resides outside the CoP as shown in Figure 3.
As a result,
problem solving is most effective at vCoP. The vCoP is the byproduct of CoPs’ boundary
processes (Malzahn, 2011).
Figure 3. Messy problem resides outside the boundaries of the CoP (Malzahn, 2011)
2.7
Cultivating a Community of Practice (CoP) scale
The knowledge acquisition process emulates Polanyi’s and Lave’s master-apprentice
situated learning system where collaboration and doing contributes to learning and retaining of
knowledge
(Polanyi,
1966),
(Lave & Wenger,
Situated
learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation, 1991). Our definition of a Community of Practice (CoP) incorporates McMillan’s
and Chavis’s “Sense of Community” which includes membership, influence, integration &
fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1996). Membership
implies the domain boundaries, sense of belonging / identification and shared artifacts. Influence
suggests that power comes with expertise, openness of relationships and learning as well as trust.
The Integration and fulfillment of needs is the routine collaboration that enhances the purpose
of membership. Finally, the shared emotional connection amplifies the network of motivated
members which grows with the well-defined purpose of belonging that builds trust.
19
The CoP as defined also magnifies the Social Learning System (SLS) structural elements
of knowledge, community, learning and identity (Wenger, Communities of practice and social
learning systems, 2000). The domain is the knowledge foundation and the network of motivated
people which builds the community. The learning is through practice. It encompasses interactive
sharing and negotiating relationships used to attain and produce knowledge. The mastering of
artifacts promotes a belonging experience and in turn, the belonging experience affirms
members’ identity. The definition also infers that the sustainability of a CoP depends on the
perceived value of a CoP for the community members to learn and gain knowledge that aligns
with the organizational vision (McDermott, 2000). Above all, trust binds all four of the SLS
structural elements (knowledge, community, learning and identity) because trust enables the
collaborative effort as well as open communication and negotiation.
20
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
The concept of a CoP is accelerating in popularity in the KM segment, but the research in
this field is relatively new and limited to multiple interpretations (Li, Grimshaw, Nielsen, Judd,
Coyte, & Graham, 2009) (Roberts, 2006). The theoretical strength of CoP has been widely
embraced (Wenger, 1998), (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002), (Chu, Shyu, Tzeng, &
Khosla, 2007), (Iverson & McPhee, 2008) with only observation-focused field studies (Cadiz,
Sawyer, & Griffith, 2009). The pragmatic issues and the lack of CoP measurements remain in the
literature (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham, & Clark, 2006) (Cadiz, Sawyer, & Griffith, 2009). This
research develops a scale to quantify the attributes of Community of Practice that is augmented
by a theoretical functional model (IDEF0 model of “Cultivate a Community of Practice”).
What is missing in the literature is a pragmatic process of looking inside the black box of
a CoP. Nousala and Hall (2008) stated that a CoP is a complex knowledge-based community that
is poorly assessed. It is from the KM practitioners’ perspectives that the specific functions of a
CoP are evaluated. The CoP functionality model will improve managerial effort to emulate a
CoP.
The informal structure of a CoP requires a different managerial effort to germinate the
hidden sources of knowledge development and integrate them into the organization structure to
leverage its full potential (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). An individual’s knowledgesharing capacity is a complex issue. The knowledge does not transform easily into a corporation
knowledge pool because it involves the complex issue of human behavioral-intention such as
motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational culture (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee,
2005).
21
This thesis is an exploratory study to attempt to quantify the latent attributes of CoP that
emerge from the IDEF0 functional decomposition of a CoP.
attributes
through
multiple
Bearden, & Sharma, 2003).
indicators
(questionnaires)
The indirect assessment of the
is scale development (Netemeyer,
The concepts of scale dimensionality, reliability and validity are
parts of the process of developing a “Cultivate a CoP” scale.
3.1
Research Design for “Cultivating a CoP” scale
The scale for measuring a CoP does not exist.
insight to a CoP.
The in depth literature reviews provide
The result is a pool of items that describe “Cultivate a CoP”. The finalized
items guide the CoP construct definitions and survey questionnaires.
The research objective of this study is to quantify the unobservable theoretical constructs
(attributes) for assessment of a CoP. Scale development is a quantitative measurement concepts
and methods (DeVellis, 2003). Netemeyer, Bearden and Sharma recommended a four-step scale
development (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003): 1. Define constructs and content domain;
2. Evaluate measurement items; 3. Design and conduct studies to develop and refine the scale; 4.
Finalize the scale.
3.2
Construct definition and content domain
This research uses 18 experiential questions in a survey to assess six specific latent
constructs of a CoP.
Latent Constructs of a CoP are not directly observable (Netemeyer,
Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). The 18 questions are the indicators or attributes of the unobservable
six latent constructs. The assumption is indicators are measurable and observable.
Latent
constructs are factors in this study. Besides the 18 indicators, the survey includes the assessment
of participation level (PL).
PL is used to gauge if the variance of the measuring scale is
correlated with community members participation rate. It is not part of the measuring scale. The
22
correlation analysis is discussed in section 4.5.1.
The research strategy is to develop the construct definition and content domain focuses
on system structural analysis (SSA). The system is a CoP. The SSA is IDEF0 modeling. IDEF0
emulates the theoretical network of Nomological that seeks to confirm theoretical concepts
(Campbell, 1960) (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). As defined by Campbell,
Nomological validity is the step to confirm the predictions from a formal theoretical network
such as a CoP.
3.3
Generating and consolidating measurement items
The Mind Map as shown in Appendix A documents the results of literature reviews. The
IDEF0 readers and writers iterative review process judges and generated measurement items
(factors and indicators). The item pools (concepts for IDEF0) are shown in Appendix B. The
initial cultivating CoP indicators are 74 items. After the IDEF0 iterative Author/Reader cycle,
there are 15 finalized indicators. Refer to Appendix C.
3.3.1
IDEF0
IDEF0 is a formal syntactical functional modeling tool based on SADT (Structured
Analysis and Design Technique) that is a graphical representation with system description (Ross,
1977). It is a top-down hierarchic decomposition model that describes the system “outside in”
through the focus of system tasks description.
IDEF0 model is built on the premise of “M
models A if M answers questions about A.” as express by the pioneer of IDEF0, Douglas Ross.
As a result, it is commonly used at the earliest stage of system development process with
multiple hierarchic sets of system description diagrams (Marca & McGowan, 1993).
IDEF0 is constructed with a “SA” (structured analysis) box that bounds the box as “under
control, input is transformed into output by the mechanism” as shown in Figure 4. The quality
23
assurance of IDEF0 is done through the iterative peer review processes of Author/Reader Cycle.
It is a vigorous activity knowledge model that focuses on the happenings of a system (Marca &
McGowan, 1993) and intensive literatures review.
Figure 4. SA box of IDEF0 with input, control, output and mechanism (ICOM)
The IDEF0 process begins with defining a viewpoint of system, defining purpose and
generating system analysis questions that the IDEF0 model needs to answer.
The viewpoint of
“Cultivating a CoP” is from researcher or manager of knowledge management.
purpose is to describe the relationship of functions in an effective CoP.
The essential
The samples of
questions are shown in Appendix D. It is enterprise architecture. Architecture represents
conceptual components, relationships and principles.
Domain, community, practice and trust are the attributes of a “Cultivating a CoP”.
The
IDEF0 functional decomposition reflects the same outcomes. The study and research of
“Community of Practice” was summarized in a Mindmap (Nast, 2006) as shown in Appendix A.
The Mindmap translates all the attributes of a CoP to 121 initial pool of items.
After the
functional decomposition, the result is 15 ICOMs (Input, Control, Output, and Mechanism) from
the IDEF0 model. The ICOMs delineate the “Cultivating a CoP” model based on our definition
and is illustrated in Figure 5.
24
Figure 5. IDEF0 Model - A1 Cultivating a CoP
3.3.2
ICOMs and Constructs
The four factors of the “Cultivating a CoP” scale are: 1. Domain - Shared practice; 2.
Practice - Artifacts; 3. Community - Motivated participants; 4. Trust - the binding catalyst of
CoP. The rest of the 11 ICOMs are indicators of the elements: boundary, brokers, competence,
competence participants, domain knowledge, experience, Interaction (routine), organizational
objective/goal, relationship, shared vision/purpose and time/commitment. APPENDIX E shows
the circular view of the non-directional relationships of the 15 items. The circle represents the
factors or constructs and the branches are indicators. The definition of the items is listed in
Appendix F - Glossary.
Expanding on the four “Cultivating a CoP” elements (Artifacts, Shared Practice,
Motivated participants and Trust), the proposed Cultivating a CoP scale has six constructs: 1.
25
Convey domain, 2. Motivate participants; 3. Build artifacts; 4. Share expertise; 5. Grow trust; 6.
Align vision. As compared to Cadiz, Sawyer and Griffith’s Experienced CoP scale where the
constructs are open communication, shared vocabulary, remembering previous lessons, and
learning from each other (Cadiz, Sawyer, & Griffith, 2009), the Cultivating a CoP scale taps onto
all four of their constructs and produces greater granularity.
“Open communication” implies Trust; “Shared vocabulary” is part of the community
artifacts. Artifacts include not only “Shared vocabulary” but also rituals, symbols and specific
knowledge. “Remember previous lessons” is enhanced by domain communication. What can
better boost learning from each other than congregating a group of motivated participants with
shared artifacts, expertise and trust? Our model focuses on intra-organization CoPs; hence, it is
critical to align a CoP’s purpose with the organization vision.
3.3.3
Content validation
In science, validity is the magnitude of how accurate the concept and measurement agree
with the theory (DeVellis, 2003). The content validity is justified by the discipline of IDEF0
author/reader review cycle. The author/reader review cycle consists of 5 members (2 professors
and 3 graduate students) and 3 review iterations.
The author of the IDEF0 model prepared a review kit that consists of a cover sheet,
model node tree, model summary, purpose, viewpoint, functional decomposition diagrams,
function description and glossary. The literature review supplements the function description as
well as the relationships among indicators. Review iteration includes examination of theoretical
accuracy and resolution of discrepancies.
3.3.4
Summary of Constructs and Indicators
Constructs are the dependent variables and indicators are independent variables. Table 1
26
summarizes the variables for the structure of “Cultivate a CoP” survey. Each construct has three
(3) measurable indicators except participation level has one (1) measurable indicator. The
following are the definitions of each constructs of the “Cultivating a CoP”:
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTS AND INDICATORS
Construct
Participation Level
Convey domain
Motivate participant
Build artifacts
Share expertise
Grow trust
Align vision
I.
Abbreviation
PL1
CD1
CD2
CD3
Indicator
Participation level
Common interest
Common experience
Role definition
MP1
Diversified activities
MP2
MP3
BA1
BA2
BA3
SE1
SE2
SE3
GT 1
GT 2
GT 3
AV1
AV2
AV3
Active participants
Commitment
Special language
Mutual engagements
Documentation
Sharing environment
Boundaries process
Mentoring process
Belonging justification
Reciprocal benefit
Differences acceptance
Learning opportunities
Personal goal
Leadership effectiveness
Level of participation: Typically, members journeyed and matured through three emerged
levels of participation: peripheral (not active), active and core (exceptionally active). The
ratios of memberships were 65-70% peripheral members who were onlookers; 15-20%
active members who were regular knowledge contributors; 10-15% core members who
were the pillars and momentum of CoP (Borzillo, Aznar, & Schmitt, 2011)..
The core members possessed genuine specialized domain knowledge and
experience to equip them with the abilities to evaluate the depth of members’ practice and
matching up the needs or levels of members. They played the roles of leaders, facilitators
and knowledge broker; as well as responsible for the cohesiveness, growth and success of
27
the practice within the community. Core members nurtured members’ will to learn,
motivation, sense of belonging and commitment that were critical to the success and
growth of a CoP (Borzillo, Aznar, & Schmitt, 2011).
At each stage, each type of members plays a different role and had different status
for effective interaction and sense of identity among the network of people. Participation
behavior influences a CoP’s group dynamic and performance. It is important to gauge
participants’ level of involvement as it affects the assessment responses.
II.
Convey Domain: Domain knowledge is CoP’s interest or common practice. It includes
specialized skills, competencies, lessons learned, experiences and routine knowledge
(Sarirete, Chikh, & Noble, 2011). A CoP is a learning system with intertwined
communicative web that binds its members together (commitment) to sustain its growth
and performance through mutual domain communication and interaction.
Domain communication is a nurturing process and it establishes the boundary of
the CoP practicing domain. A clear understanding of such domain improves members’
commitment and participation. It also affirms members’ identities and needs to learn.
III.
Motivate participants: Motivation is the required element for the effective exercising of
knowledge sharing, creating and applying. In a CoP, the levels of participation are mostly
voluntary. Its synergy can be driven by participants' motivation to share, create and apply
knowledge. Motivation has a positive relationship with commitment.
Motivated participants are committed and active. Their needs of reciprocal
contributions and learning are met. They also have a tendency to contribute and commit
willing to explore and learn. The drive of exploration and learning facilitates knowledge
application in the CoP.
28
They are also keen to participate voluntarily in knowledge sharing activities. It is
a discretionary effort of the participants. The resulting outcomes behind the motivation
are creativity and effective learning experience that contribute to positive intention of
sharing (Nesheim et al., 2011). Consequently, they are capable of influencing a positive
shared culture of learning behaviour.
IV.
Build artifacts: Artifacts can be a community’s specific vocabularies, unarticulated
custom, symbol of membership identification, and unique indication for the problem and
solution identification (Schenkel & Teigland, 2008). They are the by-product of mutual
engagement. The sustainability of a CoP depends on the accumulated community
artifacts because they are the learning resources and identity of a CoP.
V.
Share expertise: Share expertise is a communicative process to enhance the socially
defined learning through a CoP. The autonomous knowledge cultivating process within a
CoP is through a reciprocal sharing experience. It defines the comfort zone for domain
knowledge practicing, sharing and creating.
Participants of a CoP have different level of involvements and contributions.
Thus, three types of memberships or participants: peripheral (onlookers), active members
(regular knowledge contributors), and core members (leaders and experienced knowledge
contributors). Any of the above types of memberships can be identified as a broker of the
CoP.
The brokers are the knowledge mediators and are capable of bridging different
CoPs. They provide the flow of communication among cross-disciplinary projects,
boundary interaction (visits, discussions and sabbaticals) and boundary objects (artefacts,
discourses and shared processes) (Wenger, 2000). In addition, they do not directly belong
29
anywhere and may not contribute to any specific outcomes but provide needed support
for the connection between different practices.
The process of brokering knowledge also develops the infrastructure of the CoP
boundary. It is a crucial element of the boundary process where meaning is negotiated,
connection is bridged, and coordination is established. A successful brokering process
enhances mutual engagement, negotiation of joint enterprise and shared practice.
VI.
Grow trust: The key element of fostering the level of participation and sharing experience
is trust (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006). It removes barriers to relationships and provides
opportunities to open communication (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Trust is a very sticky
issue for CoP because it binds the community and practice of CoP. It also manifests the
quality of knowledge exchange. Without trust, the reciprocal of contributing process will
be hindered (Blau, 1964).
VII.
Align vision: The vision defines what is important to a CoP. It provides information about
the added value for joining the community. Hence, it contributes to the critical
sustainable effort and the member bonding process. It also forms the structure for
leadership initiatives and motivation (Nesheim, Olsen, & Tobiassen, 2011).
Members are not tied together with strict rules but with a shared vision. Each
member possesses his or her own view of the CoP and the definition of shared
competencies and members' identities. The vision of a CoP will be driven by solving
problems and executing tasks to create CoP’s memory reservoir as knowledge assets.
This leads to the process of knowledge capitalization to increase members' competencies
(Sarirete, Chikh, & Noble, 2011).
Vision must align with participants' needs in order to trigger the connection of the
30
intrinsic motivation of the participants (Nesheim, Olsen, & Tobiassen, 2011). Once the
connection is established, a positive relationship between learning and participation takes
place to unearth learning opportunities and problem solving synergies. It also increases
the potential for new emerged knowledge application and improves the competence of
participants.
3.4
Survey Set Up and Design
The format for measurement is a multiple-dimension survey. It is a Likert-type – 1-5
scale where 1 is Strongly disagree and 5 is Strongly agree or 1 is Not active and 5 is
Exceptionally active. The odd number equal weighted response scale has a mid-point neutral
response (3 – agree) (DeVellis, 2003).
The survey was distributed to two different CoPs through an on-line Google® Form. The
screen shot of the first page of Google® on-line survey is shown in Appendix G. The webmaster
of the CoP sent the survey to its master e-mail distribution list. The chosen CoPs are Wichita
Chapter of APICS (Association of Operations Management) and Wichita Chapter of SWE
(Society of Women Engineers). Both were chosen because they met our definition of a CoP and
they resemble an autonomous small-scale intra-organization knowledge network.
The purpose and contribution of the survey were presented to both APICS and SWE
Board of Directors to gain the core members’ approval and support for members’ participation.
The sample of request for survey distribution and participation is in Appendix H. Appendix I is
the layout the survey introduction and purpose.
on-line surveys.
Appendix J lists the links to different Google®
Appendix K is the survey of “Cultivating a CoP”.
Participants were given a
week to submit the survey electronically. The survey results were compiled in real time through
Google® Spreadsheet as soon as participant submitted it.
31
The tabulated responses from the survey are imported to SPSS with two different samples
(APICS and SWE). The reliability and validity of the theoretical attributes of CoPs are
examined. The correlation of indicator confirms constructs or factors. Factors reliability, factor
loading and factor reduction are analyzed through Factor analysis.
The result provides
justification of a CoP’s structure and measurement scale.
3.5
Conducting studies to develop and refine the scale
3.5.1
Sample Size and Population
The general scholar suggestions of minimum sample size to achieve accurate claim of
factor analysis in a population are number of cases and variable-to-subject ratio (MacCallum,
Widaman, Preacher, & Hong, 2001); (Velicer & Fava, 1998). MacCallum et. al. suggested rule
of 200 for sample size (at least 200 cases) and Nunnally suggested rule of 10 of subjects-tovariable (STV) ratio (Nunnally, 1979). The rule of 10 STV ratio is at least 10 cases for each
indicators.
This research has eighteen (18) indicators for six (6) factors (latent constructs). The rule
of 10 will imply a sample size of at least 180 cases or survey participations in order to achieve
meaningful factor analysis.
From the two (2) selected CoPs’ population, APICS has 238
participants’ e-mails while SWE has 56.
Unfortunately, the survey participation rate was not
even close to the 200 necessary. Of the 238 APICS members on the email list, 17 responded to
the survey which represents a 7% response rate. Of the 56 SWE members on the email list, 11
responded to the survey which represents a 20% response rate. The overall response rate for the
survey was 10%.
3.5.2
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a statistical technique for identifying clusters of factors that explain the
32
variation and correlations among variables or measures (Green & Salkind, 2011); (Field, 2009).
The variables are quantifiable. Factor analysis reduces the number of variables to a smaller set
of factors.
The finalized factors represent the system construct and reflect different or smaller
dimensions of the conceptualized theory.
The applications of factor analysis are to define indicators, define dimension and select
scale (Green & Salkind, 2011).
Indicator definition clarifies the structure of variables.
Dimension definition develops and eliminates overlapping factors.
Scale selection quantifies
latent variables. Our research samples are too small and SPSS cannot run the Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA).
The correlations or R-Matrix of indicators (variables) are evaluated to justify
for internal construct reliability, factor reduction and indicators or questionnaires evaluation.
The internal construct reliability is how accurate the indicators explain the factors (indicators
definition).
Factor reduction will determine the dimensions of constructs, internal reliability of
constructs and scale refinement.
Finally, the validation of the questionnaire effectiveness is
justified.
33
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
4.1
The data set
This research developed an 18-item questionnaire with 6 pre-defined constructs
concerning how to “Cultivate a CoP”. Each construct has 3 variables or indicators. 6 constructs
yield 18 indicators or items.
When completing the questionnaire, survey participants indicate the
degree to which of how they agree to each experiential item. Participants respond to the item on
a 5-point scale, with 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree.
The 18-item indicators
(attributes) to the constructs are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
CONSTRUCTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
Construct
Convey domain
Motivate
participants
Build artifacts
Share expertise
Grow trust
Align Vision
Variables
Q uestionnaire
CD1
I know the common interest of Wichita APICS.
CD2
I can relate to other Wichita APICS members' professional experience.
CD3
I know my role as a participant in Wichita APICS.
MP1
Wichita APICS offers a great variety of activities.
MP2
I am a frequent contributor to Wichita APICS's efforts to realize its vision.
MP3
I value the time spent with Wichita APICS participants.
BA1
Wichita APICS participants use special APICS acronyms.
BA2
Wichita APICS has activities at times that I can attend.
BA3
Wichita APICS keeps records of lessons learned.
SE1
Sharing professional expertise within Wichita APICS is easy.
SE2
Wichita APICS has participants from different industries.
SE3
Experienced participants of Wichita APICS like to share their professional expertise.
GT 1
I feel comfortable sharing professional problems with Wichita APICS participants.
GT 2
T he shared expertise from Wichita APICS participants benefits my professional needs.
GT 3
Wichita APICS welcomes different ideas.
AV1
Wichita APICS produces valuable personal learning opportunities.
AV2
My goal for joining Wichita APICS is met.
AV3
T he leadership team of Wichita APICS provides effective services to me.
34
4.2
The research question
The data analysis of the survey results are designed to answer the following three
research questions: 1. Are there six (6) dimensions underlying the 18 indicators for “Cultivate a
CoP”? 2. What is the overall scale reliability? 3. What item(s) or scale(s) should be included in
the in a “Cultivate a CoP” measure?
4.3
Participants’ involvement levels
According to Borzillo et. al., 70% of participants are peripheral members, 20% of
participants are active members and 10% of participants are core members or leaders.
The
classification of the measuring scales is 1-2 peripheral members, 3-4 active members and 5 core
members. The rating is 1: Not active to 5: Exceptional active. Table 3 tabulated the count of the
survey participant involvement by classification for both Wichita APICS and Wichita SWE.
TABLE 3
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS AND COUNT FOR APICS AND
SWE SURVEY PARTICIPATION RATE
Combined
APICS
1-2
Borzillo
data
70%
57% (16)
71% (12)
36% (4)
3-4
20%
25% (7)
18% (3)
36% (4)
5
10%
18% (5)
12% (2)
27% (3)
Level
Total
28
SWE
17
11
The responses from Wichita APICS represent a predicted CoP membership classification
while the responses from Wichita SWE do not. As shown in Figure 6, Wichita APICS’ survey
participants are evenly represented by each category of involvement level but Wichita SWE’s
survey participants are not evenly represented. Survey participants of SWE are skewed toward
core and active members.
This observation will be helpful for the interpretation of the
correlation among indicators of constructs.
35
80%
70%
Borzillo data
60%
Combined
50%
40%
APICS
30%
SWE
20%
10%
0%
1-2
Peripheral
3-4
Active
Power (Borzillo
data)
5
Core
Figure 6. Percent by members’ involvement category
4.4
Survey results for Wichita Chapter of APICS and Wichita Chapter of SWE
Table 4 and Table 5 are the survey results from Wichita Chapter of APICS and Wichita
SWE:
TABLE 4
SURVEY RESULTS FROM WICHITA CHAPTER OF APICS
ID
LP1
CD1
CD2
CD3
MP1
MP2
MP3
BA1
BA2
BA3
SE1
SE2
SE3
GT1
GT2
GT3
AV1
AV2
AV3
1
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
2
1
5
5
4
5
1
3
5
5
5
3
5
4
4
5
3
5
5
5
3
1
3
4
1
3
1
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
1
4
3
4
2
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
3
3
5
4
5
5
5
3
5
5
4
5
4
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
6
1
4
4
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
7
3
4
4
2
3
1
3
3
4
3
1
3
1
3
3
5
3
1
3
8
2
4
5
3
4
2
4
5
5
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
2
2
1
2
5
3
2
3
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
1
1
10
2
3
4
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
11
2
2
4
2
2
1
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
12
1
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
2
3
5
4
5
2
1
5
5
3
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
3
3
14
1
4
4
4
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
4
15
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
16
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
17
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
36
TABLE 5
SURVEY RESULTS FROM WICHITA CHAPTER OF APICS
ID
CD2
CD3
MP2
MP3
BA1
BA2
BA3
SE2
SE3
GT2
GT3
AV1
AV2
AV3
1
2
4
4
3
1
3
3
3
4
1
3
5
5
3
4
5
4
3
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
5
5
3
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
3
2
5
2
3
2
3
4
2
3
2
5
4
5
2
3
3
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
3
4
5
3
3
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
5
5
4
4
3
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
4
3
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
7
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
2
1
4
4
5
5
3
5
5
5
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
1
5
5
4
1
3
5
3
4
5
5
4
3
5
5
5
5
4
5
10
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
2
3
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
11
2
5
4
3
2
5
4
4
5
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4.5
LP1
CD1
MP1
SE1
GT1
Data Analysis
Scale reliability is the shared variance that contributes to the measurement of latent
construct.
Internal consistency reliability assesses whether the measurement actually assesses
what it intends to measure.
Logically, the items in a scale that have strong relationships to a
latent construct will also have a strong relationship to each other.
correlated are measuring the same cause (same latent construct).
Thus, items that are highly
The dimensionality of a
multidimensional scale (multiple constructs) consists of a set of items that correlate well with
each other (clustering of highly correlated items implies the same dimensional scale or
measuring the same construct) (DeVellis, 2003).
The formula for Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) is as follows:
(∑ )(∑ )
∑
√( ∑
(∑
)
) (∑
(∑
)
)
where X and Y are the measuring variables and N is the sample size (Jackson, 2011).
Effect size (ES) is the estimated measure of the magnitude of an observed effect (Field,
37
2009). The conventional definition of ES is as follows: small: r = .1, medium: r = .30, large: r =
.50 (Cohen, 1988). The square of the correlation provides the fraction of the construct variation
that is accounted for by the linear relationship with the indicator or predictor (Green & Salkind,
2011).
For example, r2 =.09  medium effect size – 9% of the variance of the dependent
variable is attributable to the independent variable.
4.5.1
SPSS correlation analysis
SPSS analyzes the survey results from Wichita Chapter of APICS with “Correlation”
function and generated the R-matrix known as Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r). The results
of r with the p-values are shown in Appendix L. The Wichita SWE data set will not be evaluated
because of non-representative participant pattern. The majority of SWE survey participants are
Core members or active members while the CoP participant pattern should be made up with
majority of peripheral members (70%) (Borzillo, Aznar, & Schmitt, 2011).
Correlation coefficients were computed among the eighteen (18) CoP experiential scales.
At the significant level of p= .01, internal consistency reliability is high for the following
constructs: Convey Domain, Share Expertise and Align Vision.
At the significant level of p=
.05, Convey domain, Share expertise, Grow trust and Align Vision.
At the p = .05 level, only
Motivate participant and Build artifacts scales are not reliable in predicting their respective
constructs. Refer to Appendix L for correlation and p-values.
Table 6 tabulated the average intra-correlation of the predicting group scale to the
constructs.
It assesses the internal consistency reliability, thus implies the credibility of the three
(3) assigned indicators to the construct. Convey domain has the highest reliability of raverage = .72
while Motivate participant has the lowest reliability of raverage = .24.
“Convey domain”, “Align
vision”, “Share expertise” and “Grow trust” have HIGH ES; “Build artifacts” has MEDIUM ES
38
and “Motivate participant” has LOW ES.
TABLE 6
THE AVERAGE WITHIN (INTERNAL) CORRELATION OF APICS SURVEY RESULTS
Average
WIT HIN Correlation
Constructs
Convey Domain
0.72
Align Vision
0.63
Share Expertise
0.57
Grow T rust
0.51
Build Artifacts
0.40
Motivate Participant
0.24
Table 7 is the average between correlations among the six constructs.
dimensionality.
It assesses
Build artifacts and Align vision correlate highly with Convey domain.
vision correlates highly with Build artifacts.
Align
The high correlation between constructs implies an
overlapping of measurement scales or dimensions.
The justification of each indicator scale or
factor reduction and dimensionality will be evaluated in next section.
TABLE 7
R-MATRIX -AVERAGE BETWEEN CORRELATIONS AMONG THE SIX “CULTIVATE
COP” CONSTRUCTS
Convey domain
Motivate participant
Build artifacts
Share expertise
Grow trust
Align vision
Convey
domain
1
0.27
0.51
0.25
0.32
0.68
Motivate
participant
Build
artifacts
Share
expertise
Grow
trust
Align
Vision
1
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.27
1
0.28
0.34
0.54
1
0.43
0.39
1
0.40
1
RED INK: High Effect Size.
Using the Bonferroni approach to control type I error across 153 correlations, a p value of
less than .0003 (0.05/153 = .0003) is required for significance.
If Bonferroni is enforced, only
“Convey domain” demonstrates intra-reliability while the rest of the predictors are not
significant.
For inter-correlation, “Convey domain” and “Align vision” have significant r value
39
for overlapping measurements.
Thus, the six (6)-dimension scale needs to be evaluated.
The
yellow highlights in Appendix M are for p< .0003.
With a sample of N=17, type II error is considered by increasing the p-value to 0.1 to
justify for intra-reliability.
“Motivate participant” and “Build artifact” do not demonstrate
evidence that they measure their constructs adequately.
“Convey domain” has a significant
correlation with “Build artifacts” and “Align vision”. “Build artifact” and “Align vision” has
significant correlation.
“Grow trust”, “Share expertise” and “Align vision” have significant
correlations with each other. The significant correlation implies dimensionality overlapping.
As mention in section 3.2, “Participation Level” (PL) is not part of the indicators for the
six (6) measured dimensions. PL correlations to each of the indicators are assessed separately as
shown in Table 8. At p < .01, MP2 correlates highly with Participation level (PL); at p < .05,
CD1 also correlates highly with PL. CD1 and MP2 questionnaires need to be reevaluated for
what it is measured because they overlapping the measurement of “Participation level” (PL).
The rest of the measuring scales are independent from PL.
As a result, the variance of the
measuring scale is not affected by the PL. PL will not affect the results of the scale.
40
TABLE 8
PEARSON CORRELATION BETWEEN PARTICIPANT LEVEL (PL) AND OTHER
INDICATORS
Correlations
CD1
CD2
CD3
MP1
MP2
MP3
BA1
BA2
BA3
SE1
SE2
SE3
GT 1
GT 2
GT 3
AV1
AV2
AV3
Pearson Correlation
PL
.475 *
Sig. (2-tailed)
.046
Pearson Correlation
.362
Sig. (2-tailed)
.140
Pearson Correlation
.377
Sig. (2-tailed)
.123
Pearson Correlation
.134
Sig. (2-tailed)
.597
Pearson Correlation
.877 **
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
Pearson Correlation
.425
Sig. (2-tailed)
.079
Pearson Correlation
.340
Sig. (2-tailed)
.168
Pearson Correlation
.463
Sig. (2-tailed)
.053
Pearson Correlation
.413
Sig. (2-tailed)
.089
Pearson Correlation
.185
Sig. (2-tailed)
.462
Pearson Correlation
.110
Sig. (2-tailed)
.665
Pearson Correlation
.080
Sig. (2-tailed)
.752
Pearson Correlation
.453
Sig. (2-tailed)
.059
Pearson Correlation
.189
Sig. (2-tailed)
.454
Pearson Correlation
.394
Sig. (2-tailed)
.106
Pearson Correlation
.060
Sig. (2-tailed)
.812
Pearson Correlation
.343
Sig. (2-tailed)
.163
Pearson Correlation
.269
Sig. (2-tailed)
.280
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Yellow highlight is significant at the .05 and .01 level (2-tailed)
41
4.6
Finalizing the scale
The intra-reliability as shown in Table 9, “Build Artifacts” and “Motivate Participants”
fail to measure what they intend to measure. BA1, BA2, BA3 and MP1, MP2, MP3 questions
are evaluated to determine why they fail to measure “Build Artifacts” and “Motivate
Participants”.
constructs.
Table 8 provides the re-evaluation of affected questions with respect to their
The details of significance correlation values are identified by a red circle in
Appendix M.
TABLE 9
EVALUATION OF NON-RELIABLE INDICATORS
Construct
Motivate
participants
Build
artifacts
Variables
Q uestionnaire
Evaluation
MP1
Wichita APICS offers a great variety of activities.
 Assess activities NOT participants
MP2
I am a frequent contributor to Wichita APICS's efforts
to realize its vision.
MP3
I value the time spent with Wichita APICS participants.
BA1
Wichita APICS participants use special APICS
acronyms.
BA2
Wichita APICS has activities at times that I can attend.
BA3
Wichita APICS keeps records of lessons learned.
 Overlap measurement with “Grow Trust” – GT 1
 Assess contribution
 Overlap measurement with “Build Artifacts” –
BA3 and “Align Vision” – AV2
 Assess time
 Significant correlation at p < .05 between MP2
and MP3
 Significant correlation at p < .05 between BA1
and BA2
 Overlap measurement with “Align vision” and
“Convey domain”
 Assess activity and time
 Overlap measurement with “Share expertise”,
“Grow trust” and “Align vision”
 Overlap measurement with “Convey domain”
and “ Align vision”
The R-matrix as shown in Table 7 reveals high average inter-correlation among “Convey
domain”, “Build artifacts” and “Align vision”.
evaluation for overlapping measurement.
The dimensionality of all three requires
Table 10 tabulates the overall issues about the three
(3) constructs might be measuring the same dimension because of high average inter-correlation.
For example, “Align vision” overlaps with “Build artifacts” and “Convey domain”.
The definition of “Align Vision” is not clear.
It should be measuring the alignment of
community’s vision with work organization’s vision (the organization that participants work).
42
The community can cross work organization boundaries but its vision should align with work
organization’s vision.
This ensures legitimatized support from work organization and could gain
time and financial support from work organization (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, Cultivating
communities of practice, 2002).
The proper alignment between the two visions improves the
sustainability of the CoP.
TABLE 10
EVALUATION OF DIMENSIONALITY
Construct
Variables
CD1
Convey
domain
CD2
CD3
Build
artifacts
Align
Vision
Definition
Evaluation
I know the common interest of Wichita APICS.
I can relate to other Wichita APICS members'
professional experience.
I know my role as a participant in Wichita APICS.
BA2
Wichita APICS participants use special APICS
acronyms.
Wichita APICS has activities at times that I can attend.
BA3
Wichita APICS keeps records of lessons learned.
AV1
Wichita APICS produces valuable personal learning
opportunities.
BA1
AV2
AV3
My goal for joining Wichita APICS is met.
T he leadership team of Wichita APICS provides
effective services to me.
43
 Development of clear definitions of domain,
artifacts and vision is critical in developing the
questionnaires
 CD3 – role implies leadership for AV3
 AV3, AV2, BA2 and CD3 – leadership
effectiveness
 “Align vision” has overlapping measuring with
“Convey domain” and “Build artifacts”. T he
definition of vision is organization vision not
community vision therefore “Align vision” is
assessing the wrong construct of “Vision”.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The chapter summarizes the discussion of theoretical and practical implications, the
research limitation and suggestion for future research.
5.2
Theoretical Implication
The theory of CoPs as a knowledge network requires scientific validation. A “Cultivate a
CoP” scale is developed to assess the abstract inter-relationships among the CoP latent attributes
that claim to enhance a knowledge-sharing process.
The results of the exploratory study that
attempts to quantify a CoP will increase the efficiency of knowledge management (KM) and
knowledge production.
The IDEF0 model of “Cultivate a CoP” mines the inner working of the tacit knowledge
harvesting mechanisms.
The finalized activities (functions) and attributes extend the scale
development of “Cultivate a CoP”. The exploratory on-line survey of “Cultivate a CoP” enables
the quantification of the relationships among the constructs of a CoP.
In return, the efficient
management of a CoP is one-step further toward completing measurement of a knowledge
network. The limited exploration could benefit from a larger sample factor analysis.
Four out of the six constructs are statistically reliable in measuring “Cultivate a CoP. The
four constructs are “Convey domain”, “Share expertise”, “Grow trust” and “Align vision”.
Statistically, their indicators (questions) are reliable in measuring them.
Domain, Collaboration,
Trust and Vision are the critical binding factors for cultivating a CoP. Thus, their measurements
provide important guidance for the community’s cultivation effort.
5.2
Practical Implication
This research is an exploratory pilot study of the scale development of a CoP.
44
The
reliability study suggests reevaluation of the two (2) proposed constructs (Motivate participants
and Build artifacts) and dimensional issues of Align vision with Convey domain and Build
artifacts.
The response rates and sample sizes for this research are too small for meaningful
factor analysis.
The Pearson correlation provides meaningful statistical analysis of internal
reliability and dimensionality of the scale.
The main contribution of this research is the creation of a pragmatic functional model and
an organized constructive measuring scale of a CoP.
The scale also enables knowledge
practitioners and community leaders to monitor and assess the maturity of a CoP. The finalized
constructs provide a guideline to fine tune the effectiveness and growth of a CoP. It also made
the effort of cultivating such a dynamic learning system such as a CoP sustainable.
5.3
Limitations
This research is a small-scale exploratory pilot study to attempt to validate the theory of
CoP.
The sample population is limited to non-organizational affiliated communities.
The
researcher tried to establish rapport with the community leaderships and explicitly explained the
purpose of the CoP survey. The participation rate is low and limited to core and active members
for Society of Women Engineer while APICS has a better distribution of types of participants but
the response rate is only at 7%. Effort remains to boost participation rate and broader and more
technical communities.
Communities of practice are dynamic evolving groups. It could be unstable as it evolves
over time as new members join and others leave.
The communities also require effort for
cultivation and they are built upon members’ relationships and needs. Desires to join and sustain
memberships in such a community are subjective.
success of CoP cultivation.
45
Cultivation and leadership are keys to the
5.3
Future Research
The functional model and 5-point scale of CoP are the first steps toward quantifying a
dynamic learning system of a community of practice. Future research will need to streamline the
sample population to technical communities that are directly sponsored by organization.
With
the upper management enforcement and possibly reward incentive to boost the survey
participation rate. This is a requirement to increase sample size for meaningful factor analysis.
Full-scale factor analysis requires a sample size of at least 200 (MacCallum, Widaman,
Preacher, & Hong, 2001).
It moves beyond the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) that this
research is using for the data reduction (factor extraction) and pilot study. EFA prepares the data
set for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). CFA finalizes and confirms a theoretical construct
structure (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003).
indicators for multiple regression.
It also computes factor loading from
It structural path will be assessed by Structure Equation
Modeling (SEM). Note, SPSS only supports EFA and a supplement package such as AMOS is
required to run CFA (Albright & Park, 2009).
Before the data set is ready for CFA, the measures that fail to capture the dimensions of
the “Cultivate a CoP require item and face validity. The key concept in each question needs to
have meaning evaluation for tie to construct and dimensionality. For example, “Motivate
participants” MP1:
“Wichita APICS offers a great variety of activities” should be modified to
reflect the measurement for participants but not “Wichita APICS offers a great variety of
activities”. It measures Wichita APICS and activities instead of “I” – the participant.
The studied organizations or communities for future research should include work
organizations’ communities but not non-work like communities such as APICS and SWE.
The
communities within or between work organization will have a shared drive to focus on high
46
technology or state of the arts practices. With this fundamental forming structure, the collected
data among different work-communities could be combined.
SWE focuses more on overall
personal development that could be financial training to stress techniques to high tech career
development.
APICS focuses on specific supply chain development.
It is suggested that
communities within work organizations such as Bombardier and Cessna should be included for
future study.
47
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
This research provides a structured functional view of a knowledge-transfer network with
Community of Practice.
The proposed effective knowledge-transfer attributes form a multi-
dimensional measurement scale of “cultivate a community of practice”.
The online survey with
the reliability and validity studies are the first milestone toward a validated theory of community
of practice. It furthers the research for tacit knowledge management by starting the process to
provide a measuring instrument for an effective knowledge-sharing process.
The sustainable effort for cultivating such as dynamic learning system is made possible
with a tangible “Cultivate a CoP” functional model and a constructive roadmap to reiterate the
pilot “Cultivate a CoP” scale. Future research will need to reiterate the scaling questionnaire and
survey process.
The process includes iterative item and face validity, solicit full-scale sample
size and CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis).
48
BIBLIOGRAPHY
49
Bibliography
Albright, J. J., & Park, H. M. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, and
SAS/STAT CALIS. 2009: The Trustees of Indiana University.
Blackley, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation.
Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.
Blackman, D., & Henderson, S. (2001). Does a learning organisation facilitate knowledge acquisition and
transfer? Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory, 7(1), 1-19.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power In Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.
Borzillo, S., Aznar, S., & Schmitt, A. (2011). A journey through communities of practice: How and why
members move from the periphery to the core. European Management Journal, 29, 25-42.
Buysse, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting what we
know with what we do. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263-277.
Cadiz, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, T. L. (2009). Developing and validating field measurement scales for
absorptive capacity and experienced community of practice. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 69(6), 1035-1058.
Cambridge, D., Kaplan, S., & Suter, V. (2005). Community of Practice design guide.
http://net.educause.edu/.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or
discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546-553.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support
systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Chu, M.-T., Shyu, J. Z., Tzeng, G.-H., & Khosla, R. (2007). Using nonadditive fuzzy integral to assess
performances of organizational transformation via communityies of practice. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 54(2), 327-339.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciencies. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Collins, H. (1993). The structure of knowledge. Social Research, 60, 95-116.
Collins, H. (2011). Language and practice. Social Studies of Science, 41(2), 271-300.
50
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Davies, P., Walker, A. E., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010, February 9). A systematic review of the use of theory
in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the
results of rigorous evaluation. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from Implementation Science:
http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/14
Deely, J. (1990). Semiosis: The subject matter of semiotic inquiry. In J. Deely, Basics of semiotics (pp.
22-32). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. London: Sage Publications.
Devlin, K., & Rosenberg, D. (1996). Language at work: Analyzing communication breakdown in the
workplace to inform systems design. Standford CA: CSLI Publications.
Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management
Review, 12(2), 79-94.
Drucker, P. F. (1967). Technological trends in the twentieth century. Technology in Western Civilzation
2, 10-33.
Drucker, P. F. (1967). The Effective Executive. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing
Network: The Toyota Case. Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing
Network: The Toyota Case, 21(3), 345-367.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE.
Furlong, G. P., & Johnson, L. (2003). Community of practice and meta-capabilities. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 1, 102-112.
Garson, G. D. (2013). Factor Analysis (Statistical Associates Blue Book Series). Asheboro: Statistical
Publishing Associates.
Giachetti, R. E. (2010). Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2011). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and
understanding Data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of practice:
Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(3), 641-653.
Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (2004). Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice.
Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Group Publishing.
51
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures.
Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2008). Communicating knowing through communities of practice:
Exploring internal communicative processes and differences among CoPs. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 36(2), 176-199.
Jackson, S. L. (2011). Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach. Independence
KY: Cengage.
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff , P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, Inc., 30(2), 199-218.
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin, & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice:
Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-35). Cambridege: Cambridege University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 20(1), 179-228.
Leuci, M. S. (2012, June 25). The nature of organizational learning in a state extension organization.
Retrieved September 2, 2012, from The Journal of Extension:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2012june/a1.php
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009). Evolution of
Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science, 4(11), 1-8.
Lomas, J., Anderson, G. M., Domnick-Pierre, K., & Vayda, E. (1989). Do practice guidelines guide
practice? The New England Journal of Medicine, 321, 1306-1311.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis:
The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611-637.
Malzahn, D. (2011). Legacy Domain and Data Knowledge Preservation - Emulates a Virtual Community
of Practice.
Marca, D., & McGowan, C. (1993). IDEF0 - SADT Business Process & Enterprise Modelling. San
Diego, California: Eclectic Solutions Corp.
McDermott, R. (2000). Knowing in community. IHRIM, 19.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1996). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
52
Morash, E. A., & Clinton, S. R. (1998). Supply chain integration: customer value through collaborative
closeness versus operational excellence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(4), 104120.
Nast, J. (2006). Idea mapping: How to access your hidden brain power, learn faster, remember more and
achieve success in business. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nesheim, T., Olsen, K., & Tobiassen, A. (2011). Knowledge communities in matrix-like organizations:
Managing knowledge toward application. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5), 836-850.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Nonaka, I., & Krogh, v. (2009). Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and
Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science, 635-652.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create
the dynamics of innovation. New Year: Oxford University Press.
Nousala, S., & Hall, W. P. (2008). Emerging Autopoietic Communities - Scalability of Knowledge
Transfer in Complex Systems. Network and Parallel Computing, 2008. NPC 2008. IFIP
International Conference (pp. 418-425). Shanghai: IEEE Conference Publications.
Nunnally, J. C. (1979). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
O'Neill, B., & Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract: Managing knowledge
workers across different stages of employment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(4), 411436.
Polanyi, M. (1966). Tacit Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Chapter Recognizing, defining, and representing
problems. In The Psychology of Problem Solving (pp. 3-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ptak, C., & Smith, C. (2011). Orlicky's Material Requirements Planning 3/E. United States of America:
The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits of communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639.
Ross, D. T. (1977). Structured Analysis (SA): A language for communicating ideas. IEEE Transactions
on Software Engineering, SE-3(1), 16-34.
Sarirete, A., Chikh, A., & Noble, E. (2011). Building a community memory in communities of practice of
e-learning. The Journal of Working Learning, 23(7), 456-467.
Schenkel, A., & Teigland, R. (2008). Improved organizational performance through communities of
practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 106-118.
53
Schunk, P., Malzahn, D., & Whitman, L. (2012). Social learning system: A reference model. Information
Control Problems in Manufacturing. Bucharest, Romania: Elsevier.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning . New York: Crown
Business.
Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., & Ades, Y. (2000). Understanding the roles of signs and norms in
organizations: A semiotic approach to information systems design. Journal of Behaviour &
Information Technology, 19(1), 15-27.
Truex, D., Baskerville, R., & Travis, J. (2000). Amethodical systems development: The deferred meaning
of systems development methods. Accounting, Management & Information Technologies, 10(1),
53-79.
Vasu, M. L., Stewart, D. W., & Garson, G. D. (1998). Organizational behavior and public management.
New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery.
Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-251.
von Hippel, E. (1994). "Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for
Innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (Learning in doing: Social,
cognitive and computational perspectives):. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization SAGE Journal,
7(2), 225-246.
Wenger, E. (2010). Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. In C. Blackmore, & C.
Blackmore (Ed.), Communities of Pracitice and Social Learning Systems: the Career of a
Concept (pp. 179-195). London: Springer London.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Whitman, L., Liles, D., Huff, B., & Rogers, K. (2001). A manufacturing reference model for the
enterprise engineer. Journal of Engineering Valuatin and Cost Analysis: Special Iddue on
Enterprise Engineering, 4(1), 15-36.
54
APPENDICES
55
APPENDIX A
MIND MAP FOR DOCUMENTING RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEWS
56
APPENDIX B
INITIAL ITEM POOL OF CULTIVATING A COP
Input
Purpose
Motivated-Participants
Core Group
Practitioners
Experience
Knowledge
T acit
Explicit
Do-It-A-Lot
Control
Barriers
T ime
Participation
Resources
Place
Financial
T ime
Investment
Management
Support
Management
Empowerment
Environment
Learning
Do-It-A-Lot
Expert
Opportunities
Culture
Value
Learning
Opportunities
Motivation
Personal
Ownership
Connection
Do-It-A-Lot
Strategy
Business
Investment
People
Relationship
T rust
Identification
Found
Participation
Intentional
Systematic
Interaction
Structure
Informal
Autonomous
Role
Understanding
Relationship
T rust
Cultivation
Purpose
Output
Knowledge
Emerged
Competencies
Experience
Deepen
Accumulation
Learning
Ability
Agenda
Practice
Development
Community
Autonomous
Identity
Identity
Voice
57
Mechanism
Activities
Apprenticeship
Coach
Cultivation
Relationship
Community
Strategy
Business
Documentation
Knowledge
Experience
Practice
Elicitation
People
Knowledge
Interaction
Conversation
Storytelling
Publicized
Value
Identity
Community
Seedlings
Purpose
Name
Management
Value
Community
Value
Perceived
Publicized
Creation
Learning
Community
Development
Personal
Community
Legitimization
Business
Leadership
Cultivation
Core
Fame
Experience
Knowledge
Recognition
Business
Voice
Decision
APPENDIX C
FINALIZED ITEM POOL OF CULTIVATING A COP
Input
Practice
Control
Output
Practice
Practice
Mechanism
Practice
Experience
Shared vision and purpose
Domain knowledge
Interaction
Competence
T ime and commitment
Shared practice
Motivated participants
Artifacts
Brokers
Domain
Shared practices
Community
Shared practices
Motivated participants
Domain
Shared vision and purpose
Domain
Artifacts
Boundary
Community
T ime and commitment
Domain
Domain Knowledge
Interaction
T rust
Motivated participants
Relationships
Brokers
Community
Community
Artifacts
Brokers
Boundary
Events, channels and technology
platform
Competent participants
Relationships
58
Events, channels and technology
platform
APPENDIX D
IDEF0 PROCESS: VIEWPOINT, PURPOSE AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS QUESTIONS
Project: CoP
Node: CoP/A-0
Title: Purpose and viewpoint of community of practice (CoP)
Viewpoint: researcher or manager of knowledge management
Purpose: Describe the relationship of functions in effective CoP
Questions:
 What is a CoP?
 How do you start it?
 How do you sustain it?
 What is its benefit?
 Who create it?- CoP identification
 How do you document the knowledge shared/emerged – the synergy?
 How do you recruit?
 What is knowledge?
 How does CoP relate to knowledge creation?
 Who do you recruit?
 Where does it take place/time?
 Why CoP/effectiveness?
 What makes people want to join and contribute?
 What SMEs to the CoP?
 How does it work?
 Who will manage it?
 What are the channels of communication?
 Where is the problem/solution space?
 What is the functional architecture of a CoP?
59
APPENDIX E
THE CIRCULAR ORGANIC VIEW OF THE FINALIZED ICOMS
60
APPENDIX F
IDEF0 - GLOSSARY
Initiate Social Learning System: The context diagram of the model of "Initiate Social
Learning System" is also known as the A-0 diagram. The A-0 diagram is shown in Figure 7.
Experience, competence, motivated participants and boundary are transformed into emerged
knowledge, competent participants, emerged boundary and identity by the activity "Construct
SLS" that is enabled by leadership, motivation, brokers and interaction with the constraints of
shared vision and purpose, and time and commitment.
Shared Vision and purpose
Time and commitment
Experience
Competence
Motivated participants
Boundary
Construct Social
Learning Sy stem
A0
Emerged knowledge
Competent participants
Emerged boundary
Identity
Interaction
Brokers
Motivation
Leadership
Figure 7. A-0 Diagram: Initiate Social Learning System
Motivation and leadership are tunnel mechanisms because they are the essential enablers
for the model. It is a social network of knowledge management system that is capable of
consuming, generating and applying knowledge. The ICOMs are: Inputs (I) - experience,
competence, motivated participants and boundary; Constraints (C) - “vision and purpose” and
“time and commitment”; Outputs (O) - emerged knowledge, competent participants, emerged
boundary and identity; Mechanisms (M) - leadership, motivation, brokers and interaction. The
61
model of “Initiate SLS” begins with the understanding of each ICOM.
Competence and Experience (I) - Competence is the expertise and domain knowledge or
discipline of competent participants. It is historically and socially defined through the act of
knowing as a way to display competencies. Knowing involves two components, first, the
competence that our communities have accumulate over a period time and second, our on-going
experience as a member of the world that extends way beyond a given community (Wenger,
2000).
An enriched new experience can act as a catalyst to boost our competence. New
meaning/knowledge or competence is negotiated through our participation experience. We
participate by aligning our experience with the competencies of the new organization in order to
display our competencies and be accepted as a member. (Wenger, 2000 & Nesheim et al., 2011).
When experience and competence are in conflict, learning is maximized. As a result, the
convergence between experience and competence produces deep expertise. The shared
experience also improves one's identity with the community
Motivated participants (I) - The motivated participants facilitate knowledge application in
the CoP within the SLS. They are keen to participate voluntarily in knowledge sharing activities.
It is a discretionary effort of the participants. The resulting outcomes behind the motivation are
creativity and effective learning experience that contribute to positive intention of sharing
(Nesheim et al., 2011). Consequently, they are capable of influencing a positive shared culture of
learning behaviour.
Through the level of participation, motivated participants can be ranked according to the
following three tiers membership: peripheral, active and core. The peripheral members are
onlookers; active members are regular knowledge contributors; core members are the pillars and
62
momentum of CoP (Borzillo et al., 2010). The core members make up the multiple forms of
leadership and include thought leaders, networkers and documenters (Wenger, 2000).
Boundary (I) - The boundary of a CoP is different from the traditional definition of
organization boundary that is a lack of affiliation and implies limitation. Rather, it is fluid and
accessible to its members. It is created by shared practices and domain knowledge. It could be
defined as the comfort zone for domain knowledge practicing, sharing and creating. Different
disciplines create their own set of boundaries through different experiences, histories,
communication and capabilities (Wenger, 2000).
Shared vision & purpose (C) - The vision and purpose define what is important to the
community of SLS. It provides information about the added value for joining the community.
Hence, it contributes to the critical sustainable effort and the member bonding process. It also
forms the structure for leadership initiatives and motivation (Nesheim et al., 2011).
Members of CoP are not tied together with strict rules but with a shared vision and
purpose. Each member possesses his or her own view of the CoP and the definition of shared
competencies and members' identities. The vision and purpose of CoP will be driven by solving
problems and executing tasks to create CoP’s memory reservoir as knowledge assets. This leads
to the process of knowledge capitalization to increase members' competencies (Sarirete et al.,
2011).
Within the SLS, vision and purpose must align with participants' needs in order to trigger
the connection of the intrinsic motivation of the participants (Nesheim et al., 2011). Once the
connection is established, a positive relationship between learning and participation takes place
to unearth learning opportunities and problem solving synergies. Hence, it also increases the
potential for new emerged knowledge application and improves the competence of participants.
63
Time & Commitment (C) -Time can be a crippling factor for the sustainability of a SLS.
The failure includes not making time to perform the roles. Such operation consumes members'
time from their regular job functions. Hence, the available time restricts the frequency of
members' mutual engagement.
Besides
time,
commitment is another critical factor that can hinder members'
participation. The values of such engagement need to align with members' intrinsic motivations.
Intrinsic motivation is the inherent tendency to exert one's desire to contribute or commit to
explore and learn for betterment (Nesheimet al., 2011). Motivation has a positive relationship
with the autonomous of willingness and commitment.
Authors, Nesheim et al. (2011) argued that the intensity of the motivation contributes to
the power of sharing and learning. The quality of sharing and learning in a CoP also improves
because of the increased likelihood that the motivated participants will engage in discussions, ask
questions, seek out relevant information, and look for solutions to the challenges they confront.
Competent participants (O) - The motivated participants become competent participants
who gain intellect assets, experience and contextual information (Fibuch & Van Way, 2011). The
socially defined competent participants are experienced with the shared practice of the
community. The dynamic learning environment of the SLS creates the co-dependency of
competencies and experience (Wenger, 2000). Motivated participants mature through the
confrontation of problems that are beyond the scope of the boundary of their competence or
shared practice. Consequently, they are forced to explore and negotiate new learning
opportunities to continue the quest of solving the problem. This process produces competent
participants.
Emerged knowledge (O) – Experience and competence are the key resources that the
64
motivated participants accumulate and grow within the SLS to forge the emerged knowledge.
The SLS shared practices that are defined through the experience and competence are recognized
and addressed through active learning initiation and gap identification. The recognition and
addressing of emergent directions and opportunities are equally important. The awareness and
addressing of gaps and opportunities give birth to the emerged knowledge. The gaps and
opportunities identification process is at the boundary with the integration of community
artefacts (Wenger, 2000).
Emerged knowledge sustains the solution space for problem-solving and a newly
emerged boundary with new domain knowledge. The emerged boundary (Fig. 8) is the expanded
knowledge
negotiation
space
that
is
the
missing
link
between
the
problem
identification/definition and the solution for a complex problem. The emerged boundary and
knowledge are the newly learned or defined competencies that are previously inaccessible to the
members.
Emerged boundary (O) - When the different boundaries cross each other, new
competencies and new experiences are found. At this intersection of multiple boundaries, a new
boundary emerges as shown in Figure 8.
This newly emerged boundary is where learning is at
the peak (Wenger, 2000) because of the introduction of new experience and competence.
Figure 8. Emerged boundary where different disciplines intercept
65
The emerged boundaries are born from the boundary process where new and unfamiliar
experience and competence are resolved (Wenger, 2000).
knowledge interaction.
It includes multiple domain
It is at this emerged boundary that new opportunities and capabilities
arise that provide the competitive advantage with responsive adaptive power to change.
It
generates new practices in new environments (Furlong & Johnson, 2003).
Identity (O) – Identity is a perception of how learning changes who we are and it is the
passport of membership to a learning community. The learning process enables transformation of
a learner to a knower. Consequently, it also affects our attitudes that inform how we engage in
our practice and the world (Furlong & Johnson, 2003).
Author, Etienne Wenger, argues that knowing contributes to belonging and our identities
shape the foundation of how we know and where we belong. We move from community to
community, hence the multi-membership is part of how we identify ourselves too. Identity is a
crucial component of SLS because identities combine competence and experience into a way of
knowing. Our ability to suspend and engage our identities define how productive we are at
boundary negotiation. It bridges multiple communities through our experience with the world
(Wenger, 2000).
Leadership (M) - The leadership within the circle of SLS is the essential component for
the sustainable development of such systems. It integrates different roles, functions and knowwho quality that bound the members' relationship and sharing experience. These activities impact
the process of knowledge exploration in a learning community. Hence, multiple forms of
leadership are required (Wenger, 2000).
The core members provide the multiple forms of leadership including thought leaders,
networkers and documenters (Wenger, 2000). The thought leaders possess genuine specialized
66
domain knowledge and experience to equip them with the abilities to evaluate the depth of
members' practice and match up the needs or levels of members. Networkers are responsible for
the cohesiveness, growth and success of the practice within the community. They nurture
members' commitment to participate (Borzillo et al., 2010). The documenters play a critical role
in preserving the domain knowledge and emergent knowledge to enable the replication as well as
the generation of a backbone for legacy knowledge.
Leadership is the pillar that supports the continuous growth of SLS and therefore to
simplify the diagram, it is chosen to tunnel through the model.
Motivation (M) - Motivation is the required element for the effective exercising of
knowledge sharing, creating and applying. In an SLS, the levels of participation are mostly
voluntary. The synergy within an SLS can be driven by participants' motivation to share, create
and apply knowledge. Motivation has a positive relationship with commitment.
There are two types of motivation: extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation
is autonomous. It is beneficial when membership is voluntary and the learned knowledge is tacit.
It is positively related to one's intention to perform as well as one's capability for creativity in
learning and performing (Nesheim et al., 2011). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation will
affect one's willingness to explore and extend their competencies (Nesheim et al., 2011). The
tendency for them to participate in knowledge sharing and creating activities will be low. Thus, it
is less influential in learning and participation.
Motivation is the driving force of the whole construction of a SLS and therefore to
simplify the diagram, it is chosen to tunnel through the model.
Broker (M) - The brokers are the knowledge mediators and are capable of bridging
different CoPs. They provide the flow of communication among cross-disciplinary projects,
67
boundary interaction (visits, discussions and sabbaticals) and boundary objects (artefacts,
discourses and shared processes) (Wenger, 2000). In addition, they do not directly belong
anywhere and may not contribute to any specific outcomes but provide needed support for the
connection between different practices.
The process of brokering knowledge also develops the infrastructure of the boundary in
the SLS. It is a crucial element of the boundary process where meaning is negotiated, connection
is bridged, and coordination is established. A successful brokering process enhances mutual
engagement, negotiation of joint enterprise and shared practice.
Interaction (M) -
Interaction is an essential component that sparks the initial
conformation process for a SLS. The interaction can be channelled through participation, events
and technology platforms with the catalyst of motivation or need to participate. This interaction
process influences how the members and communities define their identities. It builds
relationships that enable knowing and empowers the sense of belonging. The experience of
participation bridges competence and exchanges that involve mutual engagement to negotiate the
collective competencies. It also enables the creation of shared practices and broadens the scope
of an SLS such as the emerged knowledge and boundary.
Construct Social Learning System - The diagram, A0, is shown in Figure 9. A0 is
decomposed into three activities: 1. Cultivate CoP, 2. Create open boundary process, and 3.
Shape identity.
A1: Cultivate CoP - Experience, competence and motivated participants are transformed
by the activity "Cultivate CoP" into domain knowledge, boundary and competent participants
with the enablers of interaction and brokers and the constraints of time and commitment, and
vision and purpose. Thus, the ICOMs are the following: Inputs (I) - experience, competence and
68
motivated participants; Constraints (C) - “time and commitment” and “vision and purpose”;
Outputs (O) - domain knowledge, boundary and competent participants; Mechanisms (M) interaction and brokers. The only new ICOM is domain knowledge.
C1
C2
Vision and purpose
Time and commitment
I1
I2
I3
I4
Experience
Domain knowledge
Competence
Cultivate CoP
Motivated participants
Boundary
Competent participants
A1
Create Open
Boundary
Process
A2
Boundary
Emerged knowledge
Emerged boundary
New relationships
Identity
Shape Identity
O2
O1
O3
O4
A3
Motivation
Leadership
M1 M2
Interaction
Brokers
M3
M4
Figure 9. A0 Diagram: Construct Social Learning System
Domain knowledge (M) – Domain knowledge is related to the CoP’s interest or common
practice. It can be documented with the skills, competencies, lessons learned, experiences and
routine knowledge (Sarirete et al., 2011).
A2: Create Open Boundary Process - Boundary and domain knowledge are transformed
into emerged knowledge, emerged boundary and new relationships by the activity "Create Open
Boundary Process" that is constrained by time and commitment and is enabled by brokers,
interaction, competent participants and identity. The ICOMs are: Inputs (I) - boundary and
domain knowledge; Constraint (C) - time and commitment; Outputs (O) - emerged knowledge,
69
emerged boundary and new relationship; Mechanisms (M) - identity, interaction, brokers and
competent participants. The new ICOM is new relationship.
New relationship (O) - The relationships that are established through the interaction
among members through the boundary processes. The perspectives are met and new possibilities
arise (Wenger, 2000).
The boundary process in a SLS provides the connection among different communities
and offers the continuous learning opportunities. At the boundary where multiple disciplines
dwell, a divergent learning process takes place. Members are challenged to redefine their
experience and competencies. Thus, new experiences and unfamiliar competencies emerge at the
open boundary (Wenger, 2000).
In order to forge this autonomous learning process, the facilitated elements include
common interest,
activities,
open engagement,
ability to
translate shared practice and
commitment to suspend judgment (Wenger, 2000). The open boundary process will ensure new
knowledge is exchanged and learned. A restricted boundary will hinder the learning and
emergent properties of the community.
The boundary of CoP is fluid and is the result set by meaningful negotiation of different
disciplines or domain knowledge enhanced with personal experience. Hence, at the boundary,
learning can be maximized. The negotiating and learning are carried out by knowledge-workers
(Drucker, 1999) known as the motivated participants who carry out the meaningful learning. The
open boundary process in learning system provides the connection among different communities
and offers the continuous learning
A3: Shape Participant’s Identity - Domain knowledge and emerged boundary are
transformed into identity by the activity "Shape Identity" that is constrained by time and
70
commitment, and is enabled by interaction and new relationships. The ICOMs are: Inputs (I) domain knowledge, emerged knowledge; Constraint (C) - time and commitment; Output (O) identity; Mechanisms (M) - new relationships and interaction.
Identity is shaped by the participation, relationships and knowing in the CoP. At the
boundaries of multiple disciplines of communities, our abilities to exercise the different aspect of
our identities will contribute to the quality of the learning. They connect the bridges across
boundaries and are capable of reshaping boundaries. In the way of learning, they can be the
combination of personal experience and competence. Our identities are the bridges across
community boundaries. A strong identity ensures a successful navigation of the social setting
defined by CoPs (Wenger, 2000).
71
APPENDIX G
SCREEN SHOT OF FIRST PAGE OF THE GOOGLE® ON-LINE SURVEY
72
APPENDIX H
SAMPLE LETTER OF REQUEST FOR SURVEY DISTRIBUTION AND PARTICIPATION
Pin Pin Schunk
4200 E 24th St N
Wichita KS 67220
April 1, 2013
Board of Directors
The Wichita APICS
Wichita KS
Dear Board of Directors:
I am working on completing my graduate thesis “Facilitating a knowledge network – The role of a community of
practice (CoP)” from Wichita State University. I am requesting the Board of Directors of Wichita Chapter of APICS
to consider electronically distributing the online survey to all your members or participants. The results of the survey
will be shared with Wichita Chapter of APICS.
The survey is for academic research to fulfill a requirement of an Industrial Engineering master thesis with the aim
to develop a "Cultivate a Community of Practice (CoP)" scale. It will help contribute to better understanding and
sustainability of a knowledge transfer network as well as enhance an organization's ability to streamline problemsolving synergy.
Wichita Chapter of APICS meets the criteria as a well-developed CoP. A CoP is a network of motivated people
(Community) bound together with a shared common interest or issue (Domain) who routinely collaborate to share
expertise, to produce artifacts (Practice) and to increase know-how that aligns with a vision (Purpose).
In a CoP, learning is through social interaction and participation around subject matter experts. The theory of a CoP
has been evaluated through field observation but its complex learning phenomenal required conformity through
quantitative measurement. The theoretical variables of a CoP such as trust, expectation, learning and etc. are not
readily observable. Hence, a survey is used to extract the qualitative attributes of a CoP.
Thank you very much for your time.
Link to “Cultivating a CoP” survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/13NG32AnrLXSbhST9G2PUa0_RRNl8iIFTpM9l4Jap Vw/viewform
Sincerely,
Pin Pin Schunk
316.650.9770
Industrial Engineering
Wichita State University
73
APPENDIX I
LAYOUT OF ON-LINE SURVEY INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Purpose of the survey:
This survey normally takes about 10 minutes to complete and it has 19 experiential questions.
This survey is for academic research to fulfill a requirement of an Industrial Engineering master
thesis with the aim to develop a "Cultivate a Community of Practice (CoP)" scale. It will help
contribute to better understanding and sustainability of a knowledge transfer network as well as
enhance an organization's ability to streamline problem-solving synergy.
The Community’s name meets the criteria as a well-developed community of practice (CoP). A
CoP is a network of motivated people (Community) bound together with a shared common
interest or issue (Domain) who routinely collaborate to share expertise, to produce artifacts
(Practice) and to increase know-how that aligns with a vision (Purpose).
In a CoP, learning is through social interaction and participation around subject matter experts.
The theory of a CoP has been evaluated through field observation but its complex learning
phenomena required conformity through quantitative measurement. The theoretical variables of a
CoP such as trust, expectation, learning and etc. are not readily observable. Hence, a survey is
used to extract the qualitative attributes of a CoP.
74
APPENDIX J
LINKS TO GOOGLE® “CULTIVATING A COP” ON-LINE SURVEYS
The online survey for Wichita SWE is
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/158k4hAvGcks5C0avZwTEe3h5MKmuE98PJ7PNAeYCOUE/
viewform
The online survey for Wichita APICS is https://docs.google.com/forms/d/13NG32AnrLXSbhST9G2PUa0_RRNl8iIFTpM9l4JapVw/viewform
The online survey for Wichita Circles Network is
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1_mW_yzzwAKluA_NTe6SUCSsmzNy44wkEptow83nkrZ8/vi
ewform
75
APPENDIX K
THE SURVEY OF “CULTIVATING A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE”
Please rate the following by circling your answer.
1. Level of participation
a) How would you rate your involvement with Community’s name?
1
2
3
4
5
Not active
Exceptional active
2. Convey domain
Domain knowledge is CoP’s interest. Domain communication is a nurturing process and it establishes the
boundary of the CoP domain. A clear understanding of such domain improves members’ commitment and
participation. It also affirms members’ identities and desire to learn.
a) I know the common interest of the Community’s name.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
b) I can relate to other Community’s name members' professional experience.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
c) I know my role as a participant in Community’s name.
1
Strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
Strongly agree
76
3. Motivate participants
Motivation is the required element for the effective exercising of knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and
knowledge application. In a CoP, the levels of participation are mostly voluntary. Its synergy can be driven by
participants' motivation to share, create and apply knowledge. Motivated participants are committed and active.
Their needs of reciprocal contributions and learning are met. They also have a tendency to contribute and to
willingly commit to explore and learn. The drive to explore and learn facilitates knowledge application in the
CoP.
a) Community’s name offers a great variety of activities.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
b) I am a frequent contributor to Community’s name 's efforts to realize its vision.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
c) I value the time spent with Community’s name participants.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
4. Build artifacts
Artifacts can be a community’s specific vocabularies, unarticulated customs, and symbols of membership
identification. It can be a unique way of how a CoP solves problems. They are the by -product of mutual
engagement. The sustainability of a CoP depends on the accumulated community artifacts, because they are the
learning resources and identity of a CoP.
a) Community’s name participants use special Circles Network acronyms.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
b) Community’s name has activities at times that I can attend.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
c) Community’s name keeps records of lessons learned.
1
Strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
Strongly agree
77
5. Share expertise
'Share expertise' is a communicative process to enhance socially defined learning through a CoP. The
autonomous knowledge cultivating process within a CoP is through a reciprocal sharing experience. It defines
the comfort zone for domain knowledge practicing, sharing and creating. Participants of a CoP have different
levels of involvement and contribution.
a) Sharing professional expertise within Community’s name is easy.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
b) Community’s name has participants from different industries.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
c) Experienced participants of Community’s name like to share their professional expertise.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
6. Grow trust
The key element of fostering the levels of participation and sharing experience is trust. Trust removes barriers to
relationships. It provides opportunities to open communication as well as manifests the quality of knowledge
exchange. Without trust, the reciprocal contributing process will be hindered.
a) I feel comfortable sharing professional problems with Community’s name participants.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
b) The shared expertise from Community’s name participants benefits my professional needs.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
c) Community’s name welcomes different ideas.
1
Strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
Strongly agree
78
7. Align vision
A vision defines what is important to a CoP. It provides information about the added value for joining the
community. Hence, a well-defined vision enhances a CoP's sustainable effort as well as members' bonding
process. It also forms the structure for leadership initiatives. In addition, the participants' needs must also align
with the CoP's vision to trigger intrinsic motivation. Once the connection is established, a positive relationship
between learning and participation takes place to unearth learning opportunities.
a) Community’s name produces valuable personal learning opportunities.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
b) My goal for joining Community’s name are met.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
c) The leadership team of Community’s name provides effective services to me.
1
Strongly disagree
2
3
4
5
Strongly agree
8. Comment(s):
79
APPENDIX L
PEARSON CORRELATIONS AND TWO-TAILED P-VALUE OF APICS SURVEY RESUTLS
CD1
CD2
CD3
MP1
MP2
MP3
BA1
BA2
BA3
SE1
SE2
SE3
GT 1
GT 2
GT 3
AV1
AV2
AV3
CD1
1
CD2
CD3
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
.738**
.000
.755**
.000
.015
.954
.440
.067
.467
.678**
.002
.017
.946
.289
.244
.380
.037
.885
.456
.057
.341
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
.051
.577 *
.012
.408
.093
.633**
.005
.055
.829
.384
.116
.050
.844
.399
.101
.461
.054
.207
.410
.524 *
.025
.749**
.000
.782**
.120
.458
.056
.369
.131
.752**
.000
-.060
.812
.436
.071
-.085
.738
.277
.266
.317
.200
.046
.855
.445
.064
.720**
.001
.815**
.166
.624**
.006
.387
.112
.427
.077
.314
.204
.710**
.001
.402
.098
.419
.083
.389
.110
.332
.179
.671**
.002
.688**
.002
.720**
MP1
MP2
MP3
BA1
BA2
BA3
SE1
SE2
SE3
GT 1
GT 2
GT 3
AV1
AV2
AV3
1
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.001
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
1
.273
.272
.056
.826
.171
.497
.478*
.045
.218
.385
.353
.151
.312
.208
.292
.240
.196
.437
.234
.350
.319
.197
.351
.154
.268
.282
.183
.468
1
.490*
1
.039
.314
.204
.482*
.043
.400
.100
.383
.117
.339
.168
.383
.116
.502*
.034
.254
.310
.385
.115
.230
.358
.447
.063
.171
.081
.749
.207
.411
.526 *
.025
.215
.393
.155
.539
.286
.250
.422
.081
.183
.468
.146
.564
.072
.778
.615**
.007
.426
.585 *
.011
.278
.265
.275
.270
.381
.119
.373
.128
.282
.256
.398
.102
.267
.284
.559 *
.016
.548 *
.019
.595**
.331
.180
.458
.056
.494 *
.037
.217
.388
.706**
.001
.632**
.005
.414
.088
.569 *
.014
.557 *
.016
.363
-.016
.949
.311
.210
.000
1.000
.238
.342
.234
.351
-.098
.700
.373
.128
.684**
.002
.600**
.529 *
.024
.659**
.003
.582 *
.011
.420
.082
.407
.094
.576 *
.012
.354
.150
.098
.521 *
.027
.557 *
.016
.589 *
.010
.369
.131
.683**
.002
.501 *
.034
.466
.412
.089
.348
.157
.218
.384
.333
.176
.413
.088
.099
.852**
.000
.416
.086
.464
.053
.581 *
.011
.484 *
.266
.286
.522*
.026
.540*
.021
.545*
.327
.185
.081
.749
.033
.620**
.006
.522 *
.758**
.496
.078
.009
.138
.008
.698
.051
.695
.042
.019
.898
.026
.000
1
1
80
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX M
BETWEEN AND WITHIN CORRELATION ANALYSIS FOR APICS SURVEY RESULTS
CD1
CD2
CD3
MP1
MP2
MP3
CD1
1
CD2
.738**
1
CD3
.755**
.678 **
1
MP1
0.01
0.02
0.04
1
MP2
0.44
0.29
0.46
MP3
0.47
0.38
0.34
.490*
1
BA1
.577 *
0.41
0.46
.624**
0.27
0.06
0.17
0.31
*
*
0.08
0.21
**
**
BA2
BA3
.633
0.37
.752
0.39
BA1
BA2
BA3
SE1
SE2
SE3
GT 1
GT 2
GT 3
AV1
AV2
Example:
Convey Domain
Average WITHIN Correlation
= (.738+.755+.678)/3 = 0.72
.478
1
.482
0.43
0.22
0.40
.526
.585 *
1
*
0.28
0.33
0.46
0.05
-0.06
0.31
0.35
0.38
0.21
0.27
SE2
0.38
0.44
.710**
0.31
0.16
0.38
SE3
0.05
-0.08
0.40
0.29
0.34
0.38
0.29
0.37
*
Average BET WEEN Correlations
CD & AV
(.524+.44+.671+.749+...+.815+.720)
= .68
1
SE1
1
-0.02
1
0.31
.529 *
1
0.00
.659**
.521 *
1
**
*
*
0.41
1
.589 *
0.35
.852**
.494 *
0.22
GT 1
0.40
0.28
0.42
0.20
.502
0.42
0.28
.706
0.24
GT 2
0.46
0.32
0.39
0.23
0.25
0.40
.632**
0.23
GT 3
0.21
0.05
0.33
0.32
0.38
0.18
0.15
0.27
0.41
-0.10
0.41
0.37
0.22
0.42
0.27
1
AV1
.524 *
0.44
.671**
0.35
0.23
0.07
.559 *
.569 *
0.37
.576 *
.683**
0.33
0.46
.522*
0.33
1
AV2
**
**
**
**
*
*
**
0.35
*
0.41
.581
*
*
0.08
.620**
1
.484
*
0.03
*
.758**
.749
.720
.688
AV3
0.27 0.45 .615
**
**
**
AV3 .782
.815
.720
0.17
0.43
0.18
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
RED ink - high effect size, GREEN ink - medium effect size
.548
**
.595
.557
0.36
.684
**
.600
81
.582
0.42
0.10
.557
.501
0.47
0.10
1
.540
*
.545
.522
1
APPENDIX N
QUESTIONNAIRES WITH ABBREVIATION
“Cultivate a CoP”
Participation level (PL)
PL1 How would you rate your involvement with Wichita APICS?
Convey domain (CD)
CD1 I know the common interest of Wichita APICS.
CD2 I can relate to other Wichita APICS members' professional experience.
CD3 I know my role as a participant in Wichita APICS.
Motivate participants (MP)
MP1 Wichita APICS offers a great variety of activities.
MP2 I am a frequent contributor to Wichita APICS's efforts to realize its vision.
MP3 I value the time spent with Wichita APICS participants.
Build artifacts
BA1
BA2
BA3
(BA)
Wichita APICS participants use special APICS acronyms.
Wichita APICS has activities at times that I can attend.
Wichita APICS keeps records of lessons learned.
Share expertise (SE)
SE1 Sharing professional expertise within Wichita APICS is easy.
SE2 Wichita APICS has participants from different industries.
SE3 Experienced participants of Wichita APICS like to share their professional
expertise.
Grow trust (GT)
GT1 I feel comfortable sharing professional problems with Wichita APICS
participants.
GT2 The shared expertise from Wichita APICS participants benefits my professional
needs.
GT3 Wichita APICS welcomes different ideas.
Align Vision (AV)
AV1 Wichita APICS produces valuable personal learning opportunities.
AV2 My goal for joining Wichita APICS is met.
AV3 The leadership team of Wichita APICS provides effective services to me.
82