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

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

Expand Messages
  • Rosanna Tarsiero
    Gerrit, You wrote: “You seem to suggest some kind of formalness in CoP s” No :-) I do suggest that there are processes in CoPs and that, as such, they
    Message 1 of 91 , Nov 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Gerrit,



      You wrote:

      “You seem to suggest some kind of "formalness" in CoP's”



      No :-) I do suggest that there are processes in CoPs and that, as such, they
      can be *formalized* (as in theories and model) to find a common taxonomy and
      be able to replicate findings from one community to another. I am also
      saying that anything that can’t be generalized to other CoPs (in terms of
      what worked or didn’t work) doesn’t interest me as far as my work is
      concerned (although I might be excited about its beauty or serendipity).





      You asked:

      “that there is a
      specific point in time that one can refer to as an inception date, that it
      has a facilitator... Should that always be the case?”



      When you “do CoPs” for some time, you get to realize that in successful ones
      there is always at least one person with well developed facilitative skills,
      and that no matter how old your CoP is it will remember its “breakthrough”
      moments and those will become foundation stories. Without these two “things”
      CoPs coalesce sooner or later (and usually sooner).



      You also said:

      “We have domain, community & practice, but certainly no
      formality.”



      However, it doesn’t mean “no structure”. CoPs have a particular kind of
      *discourse* without which communities are of other types.



      It might be hard to explain (and/or to understand) but believe me after some
      time of practice (and seeing more than one CoP, on which you can base no
      stat) you’ll know how to spot one regardless of the name the mgmt gives to
      it or the convictions its members have at that particular time.




      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/>

      <http://www.gionnethics.com> Gionnethics

      <http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Via+Antonio+Ceci%2C+13%2CPisa+56125%2CItaly&h
      l=en> Via Antonio Ceci, 13
      Pisa 56125 Italy




      Want a signature like <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1127530/> this?



      _____

      From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of Gerrit Wissing
      Sent: giovedì 2 novembre 2006 2.17
      To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [cp] Re: New Member - community start-up



      Hi Rosanna

      You seem to suggest some kind of "formalness" in CoP's - that there is a
      specific point in time that one can refer to as an inception date, that it
      has a facilitator... Should that always be the case?

      In our case, we were only recently introduced to the concept of "CoP", and
      then, when looking around, we saw that the coffee room was probably a CoP.
      Its inception wasn't formally facilitated, it just sort of happened (Kinda
      brings me back to an earlier point, that the first time two people spoke in
      the coffee room, it was probably not a community yet - "community" has a
      sense of continuity to it, so the "community" didn't "start" at a point in
      time, it more likely "evolved" over time) . Also, there's no particular
      structure to it. Whoever happens to be in the room (or in the passage, or
      where ever) participates, around topics of interest that we may have
      encountered. We have domain, community & practice, but certainly no
      formality.

      Gerrit


      _____

      From: com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
      [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com> s.com] On
      Behalf
      Of Rosanna Tarsiero
      Sent: 02 November 2006 12:18 AM
      To: com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
      Subject: RE: [cp] Re: New Member - community start-up

      Fred,

      You wrote:

      “I will always think that. CoPs formed long before Julian Orr, Etienne
      Wenger and others started writing about them.”

      How does this fact mean, imply or suggest that they have no need for a
      facilitator?

      If that was the case, a coffee room or any other space would be enough for a
      CoP to form. Matter of fact is, not in all coffee rooms CoPs get formed.
      They still need Betty the secretary, Joe the cleaning person, Margaret the
      supervisor or Frank the baker to facilitate their inception.

      Rosanna Tarsiero
      Online Facilitator

      Work: 3905026116
      Mobile: 393356759481

      Email: <mailto:rosanna@gionnethics <mailto:rosanna%40gionnethics.com> .com>
      rosanna@gionnethics <mailto:rosanna%40gionnethics.com> .com
      IM: gionnethics (Skype)
      http://www.linkedin <http://www.linkedin
      <http://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto> .com/in/gionnetto> .com/in/gionnetto
      My Blog <http://gionnetto. <http://gionnetto.
      <http://gionnetto.blogspot.com/> blogspot.com/> blogspot.com/>

      <http://www.gionneth <http://www.gionneth <http://www.gionnethics.com>
      ics.com> ics.com> Gionnethics

      <http://maps.
      <http://maps.
      <http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Via+Antonio+Ceci%2C+13%2CPisa+56125%2CItaly&h
      > google.com/maps?q=Via+Antonio+Ceci%2C+13%2CPisa+56125%2CItaly&h
      > google.com/maps?q=Via+Antonio+Ceci%2C+13%2CPisa+56125%2CItaly&h
      l=en> Via Antonio Ceci, 13
      Pisa 56125 Italy

      Want a signature like <http://www.linkedin
      <http://www.linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1127530/>
      .com/e/sig/1127530/> .com/e/sig/1127530/> this?

      _____

      From: com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
      [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com> s.com] On
      Behalf
      Of Fred Nickols
      Sent: mercoledì 1 novembre 2006 6.56
      To: com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
      Subject: [cp] Re: New Member - community start-up

      Rosanna Tarsiero writes:

      > I have a question for you Fred *grin*
      >
      >
      >
      > If a group called a CoP only produces definitions and
      > endless meaning negotiations (in forms of "what do you
      > mean by…") without getting to discuss actual practice
      > (in the form of "when I did this such and such happens"
      – it doesn't matter whether the writer is right on target
      > or not), would you:
      >
      > *still call it a CoP?

      Probably not. That sounds like a faux CoP. My understanding of
      discussions in a CoP is that they arise from and pertain to the
      practice itself. Anything else is something else, not a CoP. Perhaps
      a community of interest.

      > *still think a facilitator (hidden, sponsored, self-
      > emerging, whatever) isn't needed for a CoP to really
      > form?

      I will always think that. CoPs formed long before Julian Orr, Etienne
      Wenger and others started writing about them.

      I will also think that in some cases a good facilitator can help a CoP
      get started - if there is a genuine basis for its existence.

      Regards,

      Fred Nickols
      www.nickols.us
      nickols@att. <mailto:nickols%40att.net> net

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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.