Re: [evonline2002_webheads] Study on Webheads in Action - progress report
First of all, congrats to you and then congrats to Webheads for having a
member who has catapulted us to two firsts:
"WIA is the first group, virtual or otherwise, that has been tested in this
"Does the nature of CMC inhibit implicit knowledge transfer? Here, again, is
a first for Webheads."
In itself, this 'is' an achievement! And it feels great!!!
Well, even if we don't measure up to all CoP criteria, it seems to me that
we can certainly be considered as a 'sui generis' CoP, or a CoP in limited
terms (as opposed to broad terms, meaning conforming to all criteria).
Then there is another interesting point that seems to indicate that we may
be 'sui generis', which is praiseworthy:
"However, it would take several studies of several different distributed
CoPs to validate the criteria itself (note: validate my criteria and not
Several studies! Wow! It does really seem that we are unique and not that
linear. And, if that is so, it is very special and stimulating!
These are my two cents on personal impressions of your message.
I promise to think about the directions WiA may be straying away from the
model as soon as possible.
Thanks again, Chris, for putting us in such a special position! It is a
- Hi Chris and all,
I've just arrived back in Abu Dhabi and have started checking
I feel honored that our group dynamic warrants a study of this
nature. Also, it appears to be an instance of action research, in
that results will be fed back into the community.
I take it that the independent variable scheme you mention is the
same as the nine criteria 'filtered lens' you refer to. I presume
these are 9 criteria which you take to define a CoP. As you say
these criteria will not themselves be validated during your study,
you will no doubt try to defend their logic if not their validity.
Therefore your study will examine WIA wrt these 9 criteria and
perhaps indicate changes in the group over time. It will of course
be interesting to have insights and recommendations, especially as
these might impinge on implicit knowledge transfer, which is what we
are here for.
This is a very interesting question: Does the nature of CMC inhibit
implicit knowledge transfer? And if the imlicit knowledge being
transfered is about CMC, I would imagine that use of CMC can only
help. But here again, we await your verdict regarding the various
knowledge domains we touch on (whatever those are, do we have a
I would also like to say that Webheads is a phenomenon rather than
being the product of anyone's particular plan. The group has its own
dynamic and does not aspire so much to be a CoP as to perhaps
coincidentally be one. If we can learn from CoP theory something to
improve our group dynamic and IKT, then that would be of benefit to
all on this list.
It's great that you are undertaking this study and I offer you all
possible encouragement and assistance. Let us know when we can see
--- In email@example.com, Christopher Johnson
> variable scheme I developed.distributed
> 1. Will the study prove whether WIA is a CoP or not?
> No. The study will weigh aspects that I consider unique to
> (derived from two years of studying the theory and literature) with
> The results would indicate whether WIA is a CoP, according to this
> criteria. However, it would take several studies of several
> distributed CoPscriteria
> to validate the criteria itself (note: validate my criteria and not
> 2. What if WIA does not measure up to the criteria?
> First of all, this question is very simplistic. There are nine
> over 13 months toconclusions
> "measure up to". There will be trends, fluctations, negative cases,
> tagential cases, outside
> influences, and a boatload of other things to consider. The
> will be complicated,otherwise,
> as the whole procedure is.
> However, consider this. WIA is the first group, virtual or
> that has beento
> tested in this way. There have been studies on communication,
> reflection, facilitation; all
> of which draw on CoP theory. But no study actually looks at a group
> determine it isdoes it
> a CoP. So this is a first, and Webheads is that first group. How
> feel? :-)be
> There are some conflicting characteristics between CMC and implicit
> transfer (knowledge transfer via action or doing). This is an
> interesting situation to
> observe in that respect. Does the nature of CMC inhibit implicit
> knowledge transfer?
> Here, again, is a first for Webheads.
> 3. So what's in it for WIA that is concrete and useful for the
> That's a question our resident crank would ask :-) Fair enough,
> it's a good question. At the end of the analysis, I can make
> to keep WIA's "CoPness" alive or make WIA aware of areas they may
> driftingthrough a
> away from "CoP land", assuming I see any directions
> WIA is straying from the model.
> 4. What directions do you think WIA would stray away from the model?
> No idea. I have to analyze the data and see.
> Basically, I'm looking at a very complicated phenomenon (WIA)
> filtered lens (9 criteria).
> Looking forward to your comments,