Analysis of Problem-Solving Teams As Communities of Practice

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Efrat Benn
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 (1) ◽  
pp. 13935
Author(s):  
Zhike Lei ◽  
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock ◽  
Ming Ming Chiu

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abdul Latif ◽  
Jan Vang ◽  
Rebeca Sultana

PurposeVoice role identification and the psychosocial voice barriers represented by implicit voice theories (IVTs) affect lean team members' prosocial voice behavior and thereby lean team performance. This paper investigates how role definition and IVTs influence individual lean team-members' prosocial voice behavior during lean implementation.Design/methodology/approachThis research was conducted in four case readymade garment (RMG) factories in Bangladesh following a mixed-method research approach dominated by a qualitative research methodology. Under the mixed-method design, this research followed multiple research strategies, including intervention-based action research and case studies.FindingsThe findings suggest that voice role perception affects the voice behavior of the individual lean team members. The findings also demonstrate that voice role definition significantly influences individually held implicit voice beliefs in lean teams.Research limitations/implicationsThis research was conducted in four sewing lines in four RMG factories in Bangladesh. There is a need for a cross-sector and cross-country large-scale study that follows the quantitative research methods in different contexts.Practical implicationsThis research contributes to the operations management literature, especially in lean manufacturing, by presenting the difficulties of mobilizing employee voice in lean problem-solving teams. This work provides new knowledge to managers to address challenges and opportunities to ensure decent work and to improve productivity.Originality/valueThis research raises a key issue of employee voice and its influence on lean performance which addresses two critical areas of employee voice behavior in lean teams: team-members' voice role perception and implicit voice beliefs that influence their voice behavior in the workplace, thereby influencing team performance.


Author(s):  
Ziska Fields ◽  
Sulaiman Olusegun Atiku

This chapter explores the role of communities of practice (CoPs) in knowledge management (KM) and how various collaborative practices can be used to enrich the activities of CoPs in organisations. The objectives of the chapter are firstly to define and explain the role of CoPs as a form of social and team networks in KM, secondly to identify the role and importance of collaborative approaches, specifically focusing on collective learning, creativity, innovation and problem-solving in CoPs and how these impact on the KM process, and thirdly to make recommendations to enhance the collaborative approaches to ultimately enrich the activities of CoPs in a digital age in organisations. Recommendations are made that management needs to support the forming and activities of CoPs in KM strategies, and that a suitable organisational structure and culture are needed to stimulate and support collaborative approaches to enrich the activities of CoPs.


Author(s):  
Parissa Haghirian

Knowledge is widely recognized as a primary resource of organizations (Drucker, 1992). Some authors propose that knowledge is a company’s only enduring source of advantage in an increasingly competitive world (Birkinshaw, 2001). The problem and challenge companies encounter is managing it in an effective way to increase their competitive advantages. Knowledge management is therefore concerned with various aspects of creating, examining, distributing, and implementing knowledge. But knowledge management theory often leaves us with the impression that knowledge can be as easily managed like products and commodities (Shariq, 1999). This Cognitive Model of Knowledge Management (p. 82) is founded on the belief that knowledge is an asset that needs to be managed, but is strongly contrasted by the Communities in Practice Model of Knowledge Management (p. 83), which looks at knowledge managment and transfer from a sociological perspective (Kakabadse, Kakabadse & Kouzmin, 2003). In fact, the transfer of knowlege happens between individuals; it is a mainly human-to-human process (Shariq, 1999). Knowledge has no universal foundation; it is only based on the agreement and the consensus of communities (Barabas, 1990), which make people and communities the main players in the knowledge transfer process. They can share or conceal knowledge; they may want to know more and want to learn. For knowledge transfer on an individual as well as on a corporporate level, there “has to be a voluntary action on behalf of the individual” (Dougherty, 1999, p. 264). Knowledge transfer happens for individuals and is conducted by individuals. The base of knowledge transfer is therefore a simple communication process transferring information from one individual to another. Two components of the communication are essential: The source (or sender) that sends the message and the receiver to receive the message. Person A (sender) intends to send information to person B (receiver). Person A codifies the information into a suitable form and starts the process of sending the information or knowledge to B. This can take place via talking or writing. The channel which transmits the information might influence the flow of the message and its reception. Receiver B receives the information and decodes it. After this, B tries to understand the information received in his/her context and implements the knowledge in the surrounding environment. The communication model also includes the feedback of the receiver. B starts the whole process again and codifies and sends information back to A. A receives, decodes, and interprets the information or knowledge received. A prerequisite for effective knowledge transfer is a high level of trust among the individuals and work groups and a strong and pervasive culture of cooperation and collaboration. This trust is developed through work practices that encourage and allow individuals to work together on projects and problems (Goh, 2002). Knowledge transfer is thus performed by communities of practice, which are described as groups of professionals informally bound to one another through exposure to a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and thereby embodying a store of knowledge (Manville & Foote, 1996). Their members show a collectively developed understanding of what their community is about. They interact with each other, establishing norms and relationships of mutuality that reflect these interactions. Communities of practice generally produce a shared repertoire of communal resources, for example, language, routines, sensibilities, artifacts, tools, stories, and so forth. Members need to understand the community well enough to be able to contribute to it. They furthermore need to engage with the community and need to be trusted as a partner. Finally, they need to have access to the shared communal resources and use them appropriately (Wenger, 2000). Communities of practice develop strong routines for problem solving via communication and knowledge exchange. If knowledge is transferred within communities of practice, both sender and receiver have a common understanding about the context, the way knowledge is transmitted, its relevance, and integration into the knowledge base of the corporation. Accordingly, communities of practice are generally agreed on to have a positive influence on knowledge transfer processes. Members of a community of practice are informally bound by the gains they find when learning from each other and by efficient problem-solving activities via communication (Wagner, 2000).


Author(s):  
Steve Clarke

In philosophical terms, a key issue of communities of practice (CoPs) can be located within one of the key philosophical debates. The need for CoPs is traceable to the inadequacy in certain contexts of the so-called scientific or problem-solving method, which treats problems as independent of the people engaged on them. Examples of this can be drawn from the management domains of information systems development, project management, planning, and many others. In information systems development, for example, the whole basis of traditional systems analysis and design requires such an approach. In essence, in undertaking problem solving, the world is viewed as though it is made up of hard, tangible objects, which exist independently of human perception and about which knowledge may be accumulated by making the objects themselves the focus of our study. A more human-centered approach would, by contrast, see the world as interpreted through human perceptions: the reason why the problem cannot be solved is precisely because it lacks the objective reality required for problem solving. In taking this perspective, it may or may not be accepted that there exists a real world “out there”, but in any event, the position adopted is that our world can be known only through the perceptions of human participants. This question of objective reality is one with which philosophers have struggled for at least 2,500 years, and an understanding of it is essential to determining the need for, and purpose of, CoPs. The next section therefore discusses some of the philosophical issues relevant to the subjective-objective debate: a search for what, in these terms, it is possible for us to know and how we might know it.


2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Williamson ◽  
James McLeskey

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock ◽  
Ming Ming Chiu ◽  
Zhike Lei ◽  
Simone Kauffeld

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document