Knowledge Sharing through Communities of Practice in the Voluntary Sector

2011 ◽  
pp. 301-306
Author(s):  
Lizzie Bellarby ◽  
Graham Orange
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Voluntary Sector ◽  
Commercial Sector ◽  
Voluntary Counselling ◽  
Advisory Service ◽  
The Past ◽  
Active Processes ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

Over the past few years, the concepts of knowledge management and knowledge sharing have been recognised as cognate areas of study and research. To date research has focussed mainly upon the commercial sector. However, this article looks at knowledge management and sharing through communities of practice within the voluntary sector. The work is based upon research carried out within a UK national voluntary counselling and advisory service. For reasons of privacy and confidentiality, the organisation shall remain anonymous and will be referred to as the ‘organisation’. This article considers the background to the study in terms of knowledge management and communities of practice. It then discusses the study’s methodology and findings. It concludes that knowing and sharing are active processes, and that the natural disposition of the actors was found to be important in how knowledge sharing and learning was undertaken.

A Knowledge Management Tool for the Interconnection of Communities of Practice

2013 ◽  
pp. 56-76
Author(s):  
Élise Lavoué ◽  
Sébastien George ◽  
Patrick Prévôt
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Use Case ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Geographically Distributed

In their daily practice, practitioners belong to local communities of practice (CoPs) within their organisation. This knowledge is rarely capitalised upon because discussions are mainly verbal. Practitioners can also belong to general CoPs online. Within these general CoPs, discussions are rarely linked to the context in which they appeared, since the members are from different companies or institutions. This paper (1) connects these two levels of CoPs by contacting practitioners belonging to CoPs centred on the same general activity but who are geographically distributed and (2) capitalises on the produced knowledge by contextualising, allowing it to be accessible and reusable by all the members. The authors detail the main results of the research: (1) a model of the interconnection of CoPs (ICP) to support knowledge sharing and dissemination; and (2) a specific knowledge management tool for the ICP knowledge base. The authors apply the model and platform to university tutors by: (1) developing a use case, which links the model and the TE-Cap 2 platform and highlights the new possibilities offered by the knowledge management tool; and (2) conducting a descriptive investigation lasting for five months.

A Knowledge Management Process in Communities of Practice of Engineering Based on the SECI Model for Knowledge

2012 ◽  
pp. 134-149
Author(s):  
Akila Sarirete ◽  
Azeddine Chikh
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Social Learning ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Management Process ◽  
High Importance ◽  
Web Technologies ◽  
Seci Model

With the vast movement toward promoting and developing models, practices, and technological environments in the engineering domain, a need exists to facilitate communication, collaboration, and coordination among its actors. Communities of Practice (CoPs) represent the natural and logical solution to answer these needs. In this paper, the authors propose a knowledge management process to exploit tacit and explicit knowledge in the engineering domain within the framework of a CoP of engineering. The approach used in this work introduces new elements in the Nonaka’s SECI model for knowledge creation. To validate the proposed process, a qualitative case study has been conducted on two CoPs, “CPsquare” and “The Cisco Learning Network”. It has been shown that CoPs and social learning impact learning as well as knowledge sharing. The use of web technologies and socio-technical approach in the management of knowledge is of high importance.

The RCQ Model

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dohan ◽  
Ted Xenodemetropoulos ◽  
Joseph Tan
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Change Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Variance Model ◽  
Practice Audit

As society moves into the age of active knowledge management and sharing, inter-clinician relationships and communities of practice can be directed to support quality improvement efforts within healthcare organizations. It is argued that successful adoption of the processes that are critical to quality improvement is necessary for durable improvements in quality. Knowledge sharing is necessary for supporting the skills in performing activities associated with practice audit, change management and use of the associated technology. This paper introduces the Relationships, Communities, Quality (RCQ) model, which provides a framework for the purpose of conceptualizing how quality improvement in healthcare can be sustained. A variance model is proposed for the evaluation of communities of practice for their value in quality improvement in healthcare.

A Knowledge Management Tool for the Interconnection of Communities of Practice

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Élise Lavoué ◽  
Sébastien George ◽  
Patrick Prévôt
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Use Case ◽  
General Activity ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Geographically Distributed

In their daily practice, practitioners belong to local communities of practice (CoPs) within their organisation. This knowledge is rarely capitalised upon because discussions are mainly verbal. Practitioners can also belong to general CoPs online. Within these general CoPs, discussions are rarely linked to the context in which they appeared, since the members are from different companies or institutions. This paper (1) connects these two levels of CoPs by contacting practitioners belonging to CoPs centred on the same general activity but who are geographically distributed and (2) capitalises on the produced knowledge by contextualising, allowing it to be accessible and reusable by all the members. The authors detail the main results of the research: (1) a model of the interconnection of CoPs (ICP) to support knowledge sharing and dissemination; and (2) a specific knowledge management tool for the ICP knowledge base. The authors apply the model and platform to university tutors by: (1) developing a use case, which links the model and the TE-Cap 2 platform and highlights the new possibilities offered by the knowledge management tool; and (2) conducting a descriptive investigation lasting for five months.

SOCIETY OF PETROPHYSICISTS. ONLINE-PLATFORM FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND SHARING

2020 ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
E.N. Maksimova ◽  
E.G. Viktorov ◽  
E.O. Belyakov ◽  
B.V. Belozerov
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Petrophysical Properties ◽  
Reservoir Properties ◽  
Online Platform ◽  
Log Interpretation ◽  
Uncertain Distribution ◽  
Technical Centre

The geology of oilfields is becoming more complex, which leads to uncertain distribution of petrophysical properties. Quality of reservoir properties prediction depends on petrophysical models and log interpretation algorithms. It is also connected with the level of expertise of each petrophysicist as well as knowledge sharing among experts and young specialists. The aim of this paper is to present Gazprom Neft Science and Technical Centre approach to development of petrophysical competences with communities of practice.

Ba and Communities of Practice in Research and Strategic Communities as a Way Forward

2011 ◽  
pp. 46-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irma Mäkäräinen-Suni ◽  
Jianzhong Hong
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Organizational Learning ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Previous Knowledge ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Complementary Nature ◽  
Similarities And Differences

This chapter primarily examines the concepts of ba and communities of practice. It explores how the concepts have been used in the previous knowledge management, organizational learning, and innovation research during a decade, from the year 1999 until 2009. The reviewed studies show that both concepts have been used in various industries and in various knowledge creation and knowledge sharing situations. The similarities and differences of concepts are compared, and the concept of strategic communities is proposed as a way forward in future research and practice in terms of ba and communities of practice. The chapter includes also a comparative view of each concept, in which its major contributions, limitations and complementary nature are highlighted.

Knowledge Management and Interaction in Virtual Communities

2011 ◽  
pp. 216-232
Author(s):  
Maria Chiara Caschera ◽  
Arianna D’Ulizia ◽  
Fernando Ferri ◽  
Patrizia Grifoni
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
User Participation ◽  
Knowledge Map ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Agent Based ◽  
Virtual Communities Of Practice

This chapter provides a classification of virtual communities of practice according to methods and tools offered to virtual community members for the knowledge management and the interaction process. It underlines how these methods and tools support users during the exchange of knowledge, enable learning, and increase the user ability to achieve individual and collective goals. In this chapter virtual communities are classified in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice and virtual learning communities of practice according to the collaboration strategy. A further classification defines three kinds of virtual communities according to the knowledge structure: ontology-based VCoP; digital library-based VCoP; and knowledge map-based VCoP. This chapter also describes strategies of interaction used to improve the knowledge sharing and learning in groups and organizations. It shows how agent-based method supports interaction among community members, improves the achievement of knowledge, and encourages the level of user participation. Finally, this chapter presents the system’s functionalities that support browsing and searching processes in collaborative knowledge environments.

Varieties of Virtual Organizations and their Knowledge Sharing Systems

Virtual Teams ◽  
2011 ◽  
pp. 186-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Hornett
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Virtual Work ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Project Teams ◽  
Management Styles ◽  
Team Leaders ◽  
Unrealistic Expectations

Provided in this chapter is an analysis of the differences between virtual teams and communities of practice. The chapter links two growing phenomena: virtual organizing and knowledge sharing (knowledge management), based on empirical work from both fields of research. By integrating various types of virtual organizing with corresponding knowledge-sharing systems, the author provides a framework that virtual team leaders, members, and consultants can use to improve management of virtual endeavors. This chapter suggests that calling nearly everything a “Community of Practice” creates unrealistic expectations for spontaneous organizing and knowledge sharing. Indeed, the managers of Virtual Project Teams have organizing challenges that are very different from stewards of Communities of Practice. Practitioners struggling with “one-size-fits-all” prescriptions for virtual work or knowledge management can use this chapter’s three generalized types to develop communications and management styles appropriate for the unique cultures found in each of the various combinations of virtual organizing and knowledge sharing.

Technology and Tools Supporting CoPs

2013 ◽  
pp. 316-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheryl Buckley ◽  
Paul Giannakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Tacit Knowledge ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Or Education ◽  
Daily Routines ◽  
The Past

The role of technology in organisations over the past two decades, whether centred on business or education, has varied from performing simple day-to-day tasks to performing highly sophisticated problem-solving tasks. Many organisations have either adjusted their daily routines to accommodate new technology or developed technologies to satisfy their needs. At the same time, the credo “knowledge is power” was changing to one of “knowledge sharing is power.” Once this change was recognized, Communities of Practice (CoPs), a special type of community of practitioners sharing knowledge voluntarily, began to play a very important role in Knowledge Management (KM). Such communities relied heavily on technology in order to prosper. One of the greatest advantages of these communities is the sharing of tacit knowledge, in a disciplinary as well as interdisciplinary environment, which is an “ingredient” of innovation and competitive advantage. This chapter will review the ongoing evolution of the tools, types of technology, and innovations that can be used by both online and offline CoPs. It will further address the matter of which technological innovations and tools academics can use to support CoPs and the design of technology used for this purpose.

Audit Firms as Networks of Offices

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott E. Seavey ◽  
Michael J Imhof ◽  
Tiffany J. Westfall
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Network Connectedness ◽  
Partner Knowledge ◽  
Office Level

SUMMARY Prior audit research suggests that most, if not all, audit quality can be explained at the office level. However, the question remains of whether office-level audit quality is contingent on how individual offices relate to the firm as a whole. Motivated by theories of knowledge management, organizational learning, and networks, we posit that individual offices are connected to their audit network through partner knowledge sharing and oversight, which impact office-level audit quality. We interview Big 4 audit partners and learn that knowledge sharing between partners in different offices is common and intended to aid in the provision of audit services. Using network connectedness to proxy for knowledge sharing and oversight between offices of the same firm, we document that more connected offices are associated with fewer client restatements and lower discretionary accruals. We additionally find that network effects are magnified when accounting treatments are more complex and require greater auditor judgement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document