Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [cp] Re: New Member - community start-up

Expand Messages
  • Rosanna Tarsiero
    Joe, You wrote: But if we ve got a number of techniques we can apply to enable knowledge making and knowledge integration in the context of a KM portfolios,
    Message 1 of 91 , Oct 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe,

      You wrote:
      "But if we've got a number of techniques we can apply to enable knowledge
      making and knowledge integration in the context of a KM portfolios, we've
      got to know whether and why enabling CoPs is more beneficial than enabling
      formal Group Decision Processes, Intelligent Complex Adaptive Teams, easier
      formation of friendship groups within organizational environments, Critical
      Orientations toward Knowledge Making, VNA, Anecdote Circles, Narrative
      Databases, Semantic Network Analysis, Text Mining, Enterprise Knowledge
      Portals (which don't exist yet in my sense of the term), Open Space Events,
      Risk Intelli
      gence Measurement, and the myriad other things we can do to enhance
      Knowledge Life Cycles."

      Fully aware that I'm opening a can of worms here, however... contrary to the
      popular CoP believer belief, I do not think that CoPs are more beneficial
      per se.

      I do think that, under the right conditions, they *can* be a benefit for
      many associations and organizations, but I'm FAR from depicting them to be
      the Holy Grail or something.

      In particular, the use of CoPs might make sense whenever the organization
      needs a personalization approach to KM, which in and by itself also depends
      on the strategic planning such organization has.

      That's why I asked you (about a year ago) if you were interested in working
      on a CoP activity classification that relates to KM *wink wink*

      Rosanna Tarsiero
      Online Facilitator , Gionnethics
      rosanna@...
      W: 3905026116
      M: 393356759481
      http://www.gionnethics.com
      Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto

      -----Original Message-----
      From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of eisai@...
      Sent: martedì 31 ottobre 2006 18.18
      To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [cp] Re: New Member - community start-up

      Ro,

      The middle way, indeed. I think Fred is right that we can't have Managers
      herding CoP members and squeezing information out of them, but at the same
      time, CoP Programs need to be accountable if they're going to draw on
      organizational resources, so measurement models and metrics dealing with
      their impact are sorely needed. Call it ROI, call it impact analysis, call
      it evaluation research. But if we've got a number of techniques we can apply
      to enable knowledge making and knowledge integration in the context of a KM
      portfolios, we've got to know whether and why enabling CoPs is more
      beneficial than enabling formal Group Decision Processes, Intelligent
      Complex Adaptive Teams, easier formation of friendship groups within
      organizational environments, Critical Orientations toward Knowledge Making,
      VNA, Anecdote Circles, Narrative Databases, Semantic Network Analysis, Text
      Mining, Enterprise Knowledge Portals (which don't exist yet in my sense of
      the term), Open Space Events, Risk Intelli
      gence Measurement, and the myriad other things we can do to enhance
      Knowledge Life Cycles. And how can we know this without better metrics and
      the models that underly them.

      Best,


      Joe



      -------------- Original message ----------------------
      From: "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...>
      > Joe,
      >
      >
      > You wrote:
      >
      > �Not so much social engineering as a recognition that if CoP programs,
      or
      > any other interventions are seen as not making a contribution, the
      > organization involved is unlikely to continue enabling them. Hasn't that
      > already happened in certain organizations after evaluation of CoP
      programs?�
      >
      >
      > Everybody is there for the �what�s in it for me� factor,
      organizations AS
      > WELL AS CoP members. The key strategy is finding a win-win perspective.
      > Asking an organization to provide funds and resources for a CoP without
      > getting anything out of it is like asking the CoP members to participate
      > without getting at least enjoyment out of such engagement.>
      >
      > Doomed to failure.>
      >
      > Since I do believe that CoPs are very important for the sustainability of
      KM
      > (and organizations as well), I also happen to believe that a stand which
      is
      > adversarial toward the organization (or its management) is braindead.>
      >
      > It�s all a matter of WHICH managerial stand is a fit for CoPs and WHICH
      > community types are a fit for the specific organization
      >
      >
      > Rosanna Tarsiero
      > Online Facilitator

      >
      > Work: 3905026116
      > Mobile: 393356759481
      >
      > Email: <mailto:rosanna@...> rosanna@...
      > IM: gionnethics (Skype)
      > http://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto
      > My Blog <http://gionnetto.blogspot.com/>
      >

      >
      >



      *-- The email forum on communities of practice --*
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Gerrit Wissing
      Hi Maybe if one exchanges spontaneous with intentional , the two sides to this conversation will become clearer. the argument then would be that some
      Message 91 of 91 , Nov 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi

        Maybe if one exchanges "spontaneous" with "intentional", the two sides to
        this conversation will become clearer. the argument then would be that some
        communities arise unintentionally. Of course there are people forming the
        community. But not with the intention of forming a community. They're just
        standing around drinking coffee, chatting about stuff that happens in the
        office. Then there are communities that are formed deliberately, with a
        definite focus and structure,

        Whatever the case, when it starts, it's not a community (yet). Community
        requires a certain "fellowship", which is not present at inception - it
        evolves over time, again intentionally or unintentionally - and may
        ultimately decline (yes, again intentionally or unintentionally)

        From what I've read here, both forms, and variations thereof have been
        witnessed. I think to move forward, we shouldn't have absolutist
        (either...or) views - it won't suffice to fully describe the phenomenon. A
        "both...and" view will serve us better in understanding & describing the
        phenomenon.

        I think

        Gerrit

        _____

        From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of Macuarium
        Sent: 02 November 2006 08:38 PM
        To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [cp] Re: (...) - community start-up



        Hi again,

        just so that my previous post causes no misunderstanding, one last post.

        The argument that I was attacking (following Rosanna's taunt :-)) is
        that CoPs are ever "spontaneous" at all.

        As you may know, I don't think the view of CoPs is complete without a
        clear vision of the role of the people who start them.

        And that does not mean "outside", "corporate", "top-down" or otherwise
        "fostering" outside agents. I'm not talking about "cultured" vs
        "spontaneous" here.

        It means that the first CoP members start it, and that moment and
        process hold a lot of interesting lessons.

        There is nothing impersonal, "spontaneous", in it. CoPs are the result
        of decisions, some conscious, some less, many without awareness of
        name-tags.

        The fact that CoPs are found "on the wild" does not mean they spring
        out of thin air. It means the person doing the finding has arrived
        late at the birth of the CoP.

        Having witnessed and helped quite a few of those births, I can tell
        they are valiant, complicated attempts at doing something worthwhile,
        by very concrete and individual people. Dismissing the work of those
        entrepreneurs as "spontanous"... strikes me as sort of an
        oversimplification ;-).

        However useful that oversimplification may have originally been when
        CoP theory was starting. Just like macro economics are quite useful.
        But it's not the complete picture.

        At least, that is my view at the moment :-).

        Best regards,

        Miguel

        The view--- In com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com>
        s.com, Joe Firestone <eisai@...> wrote:
        >
        > Fred,
        >
        > Thanks for your note.
        >
        > I didn't think you were making such an argument.
        >
        > Best,
        >
        >
        > Joe
        >
        > Fred Nickols wrote:
        >
        > > Joe writes:
        > >
        > > > However, many of the arguments made here on the issue
        > > > seem to take the position that this isn't an empirical
        > > > question, but rather a matter of definition, and that
        > > > since Lave and Wenger defined CoPs as entirely self-
        > > > generating, then that settles the issue.
        > >
        > > FWIW, I'm not making such an argument. I have no difficulty in
        > > believing that a "true CoP" (i.e., one that functions as such) can
        > > evolve from purposeful outside intervention. I also believe that CoPs
        > > can emerge without any purposeful outside intervention. (Indeed, many
        > > of the CoPs written about emerged from member interactions, not an
        > > outside agency.)
        > >
        > > In the early days of this list, I likened the two kinds of CoPs to
        > > natural and cultured pearls. Both are pearls but there are some
        > > important differences. I still subscribe to that view.
        > >
        > > Regards,
        > >
        > > Fred Nickols
        > > nickols@... <mailto:nickols%40att.net>
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.