Limitations of communities of practice: a consideration of unresolved issues and difficulties in the approach.

Communities of practice are becoming increasingly common on the organizational landscape. Organizations are simultaneously incorporating communities of practice into internal knowledge management systems and spanning elements from the external environment. However, the literature has tended to favor the positive outcomes with the approach. This article explores potential challenges confronting communities of practice so that organizations may better manage conditions crucial to their success. Perspectives of time constraints, organizational hierarchies, and regional culture are highlighted, and propositions bearing consideration when implementing a community of practice are stated. A discussion section ends this article.

Keywords: knowledge management; organizational learning; communities of practice; organizational hierarchy; time poverty

**********

Communities of practice, despite being a term of relatively recent invention, have become increasingly utilized by organizations as a means of improving performance (Wenger, 2007). A substantial volume of literature has been published that generally communicates a positive or even "rose-tinted" view of communities of practice (Pemberton, Mavin, & Stalker, 2007), and there is little argument regarding the potential benefits that can accrue to organizations that are able to effectively integrate communities of practice within their existing structures (McDermott, 2002; Pemberton et al., 2007; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). However, communities of practice should not be regarded as a "magic bullet," capable of enabling an organization to seamlessly disseminate knowledge, or to overcome both organizationally and socially constructed barriers.

Given the growing importance of knowledge management, both internal and external to the organization, it is imperative that communities of practice be understood in terms of their limitations, as well. This article attempts to more fully explore limitations, from the perspectives of time constraints, organizational hierarchies, and regional culture (sociocultural environment) that have been overlooked regarding the community of practice approach, and encourage academics and practitioners alike to both deepen and broaden their understanding of this knowledge management tool.

Communities of Practice--A Brief History

The origin of the term "communities of practice" may be traced to Lave and Wenger (1991), who first used the term in describing situated learning, where learning is not simply the acquisition of propositional knowledge, but rather occurs through certain forms and types of social coparticipation, is contextual, and embedded within both a social and physical environment. The learning that occurs within a community of practice is highly interactive, with the individual learner not simply accessing a discrete, static body of abstract knowledge to be transported and reapplied in subsequent contexts and situations. Rather, learning and skill acquisition occur by actually engaging in the desired practice itself, within a participational framework, not an individual mind. It is distributed among the various individuals who are participating together within the learning context, and is mediated by their differences of perspective. Apprentices (those individuals new to a certain community of practice) may gain more in proportion to their knowledge status prior to joining, but masters (experienced community of practice members with socially acknowledged higher levels of expertise) learn, and continue to learn as a direct result of their membership and participation within the community, as well. In addition, even in instances where a fixed, immutable doctrine is transmitted from master to apprentice, the ability of such a community to reproduce itself is rooted not in the doctrine, but in the continued maintenance of certain modes of coparticipation and community in which the doctrine is embedded (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

The term "apprenticeship," as defined within the context of a community of practice, is not confined to the character that is frequently ascribed to it, that being of an anachronistically irrelevant tradition, such as a feudal European craft guild. Instead, apprenticeships in modern society are frequently served, in some form, wherever high levels of skill, knowledge, and expertise are demanded, throughout a diverse array of disciplines (medicine, law, teaching, professional sports, the performing arts, industrial trades), and across much of the contemporary world (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In fact, there are striking parallels between the occupations that traditionally have been regarded as requiring an "apprenticeship" and those in present day society that are staffed by "professionals"--both allow for the management of greater task complexity by confronting it with more highly qualified workers (rather than through the subdivision of tasks among differentiated workers with a limited repertoire of skills), able to use their knowledge, skills, and abilities with a high degree of flexibility, independence, and under uncertain circumstances (Scott, 2003).

This diversity of application is reflected within the five accounts of apprenticeships from which the concept of a community of practice was originally developed: Yucatec Mayan midwifes in Mexico, Vai and Gola tailors in Liberia, the work-learning settings of U.S. Navy quartermasters, butchers in U.S. supermarkets, and "nondrinking alcoholics" (recovering alcoholics) in Alcoholics Anonymous (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Although these five accounts provide a contemporary basis for the concept, communities of practice have likely existed in a similar form for centuries. The ancient Romans had "corporations" of craft-based artisans, including metalworkers, potters, and masons, having both a social aspect, with members worshipping common deities and celebrating holidays together, and a business function, as a means of earning a living, training apprentices, and spreading innovation. Every organization and industry possesses its own history of practice-based communities, even if these are not formally recognized (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).

Definition and Common Characteristics of Communities of Practice

Lave and Wenger (1991) originally defined a community of practice as being a set of relations among persons, their activity, and the relevant environment, the relationship existing over time (brief or extended), and interfacing with other adjacent or tangential communities of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) also state that a community of practice is an intrinsic, essential condition for the existence of knowledge. Table 1 contains a description of the more common characteristics of a community of practice. The existence or implicit acknowledgement of a greater number of listed characteristics, coupled with an increased richness of shared experience for each characteristic among members, may facilitate the overall effectiveness of a given community of practice. This list is not all inclusive, as there are other common characteristics that may develop, evolve, or emerge among community of practice participants during an extended period of time.

Structural Components of Communities of Practice

Communities of practice vary greatly in form, size, and even name, yet all possess certain fundamental structural components. Table 2 provides further detail regarding the structuring of communities of practice along several relevant dimensions. Communities of practice are created in response to a diverse array of situations, circumstances, and people. As such, they correspondingly vary on the structural components that are listed. In addition, to optimize the effectiveness of a given community of practice, the structural components may need to be adjusted by members on occasion.

Distinctions Between Communities of Practice and Other Structures

Together the terms "community" and "practice" refer to a specific type of social structure with a specific intended purpose (Wenger et al., 2002). Table 3 provides information contrasting a community of practice with other, more familiar social structures to describe the relevant dimensions along which it may be differentiated. These distinctions, structural components, and common characteristics are vital for a community of practice to function effectively and to gain legitimacy, recognition, and permanence within an organization.

Internal Knowledge Management System

As communities of practice have developed, so have the contributions within the literature to suggest this structure can be cultivated within an organization with the intent of leveraging for competitive and strategic advantage (Roberts, 2006; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Wenger et al., 2002) and to enhance and improve performance. However, it must also be stated that communities of practice are resistant to supervision, interference, and cooptation by an organization, because of their inherently organic and informal nature (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). In addition, management support must be present, from senior level to first line, or meaningful progress will not be possible (McDermott, 2000), and although these structures are informal in nature, communities of practice frequently reflect the "fault lines" along which the organization naturally (as opposed to rationally) operates (Scott, 2003; Wright, 1998). How then does management support communities of practice when they, paradoxically, are difficult to manage? Although an answer to this question is elusive (and, admittedly, beyond the scope of this article), communities of practice can improve the knowledge sharing capabilities within an organization.

In the gas and energy exploration industry, improving knowledge-sharing abilities by linking relevant internal technical experts has resulted in faster project completion times and less duplication of efforts (Edmundson, 2001). At Schlumberger, a knowledge management system named Eureka links more than 5,200 Oilfield Services technical experts into communities of practice. These communities allow the ability to share know-how, hot tips, and conceptual understanding--the "infinite knowledge we all have in our heads" (Edmundson, 2001). In addition, they allow each technical expert within Schlumberger two locations to call "home": the organization the individual happens to be working in during the current assignment (the formal, rational, hierarchically sanctioned position codified on an organization chart) and the Eureka technical community, likely to remain their home for an extended period of time (the informal, natural, horizontally linked network of peers the individual will consult regularly within the relevant community of practice) (Edmundson, 2001).

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates