If communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) are best understood as fluid social relations, enacted among a self-selected group of participants, then are they best left alone, free from “interference” by organizational managers and policymakers? Or are there ways in which organizations can provide helpful support to such communities, without constraining the delicate dynamic by which they are sustained? This paper supports the latter position, arguing that organizations should sponsor the creation of certain loose organizational structures, around which it is hoped that communities of practice may then interact. However, some recent empirical research is presented suggesting that attempts to control group interaction by introducing too much structure are likely to result in the demise of the community itself. It is therefore proposed that there are lower and upper parameters for structural intervention in communities of practice. It is suggested that such communities also have epistemic parameters, where participants’ willingness to express their ideas as conceptual boundary objects around which others may engage and develop ideas is a minimum requirement, but where too much inward communicative focus is likely to result in gradual loss of meaning, with a negative effect on the community. In developing this position, this paper attempts to deepen our theoretical understanding of the interrelationship between organizational structure and the epistemic activity of members of communities of practice. Several practical implications of these insights are discussed for organizations wishing to cultivate and maintain communities of practice within their own working environments.

The concept of "Government as a Platform" (GaaP) (O'Reilly 2009) is coined frequently, but interpreted inconsistently: views of GaaP as being solely about technology and the building of technical components ignore GaaP's radical and disruptive embrace of a new economic and organisational model with the potential to improve the way Government operates-helping resolve the binary political debate about centralised versus localised models of public service delivery. We offer a structured approach to the application of the platforms that underpin GaaP, encompassing not only their technical architecture, but also the other essential aspects of market dynamics and organisational form. Based on a review of information systems platforms literature, we develop a Platform Appraisal Framework (PAF) incorporating the various dimensions that characterise business models based on digital platforms. We propose this PAF as a general contribution to the strategy and audit of platform initiatives and more specifically as an assessment framework to provide consistency of thinking in GaaP initiatives. We demonstrate the utility of our PAF by applying it to UK Government platform initiatives over two distinct periods, 1999-2010 and 2010 to the present day, drawing practical conclusions concerning implementation of platforms within the unique and complex environment of the public sector.

This article argues that the future of public services will be shaped increasingly by the evolution of global, Internet-enabled, digital platforms, with two distinctive technical and commercial features. First, use of open standards and architectures that separate standard business logic from supporting applications will allow government to become technology-and vendor-agnostic, freeing it from its overdependence on proprietary systems and suppliers. Second, over time, open standards and increased market choice will drive both innovation and progressive convergence on cheaper, standard "utility" public services. These two features will combine to create a powerful dynamic situation, driving disintegration of traditional "black boxed" technologies and services, traditionally organized around "systems integrators" and departmental structures, and their reaggregation around the citizen in the form of services. Such reaggregation is allowing progressively sharp distinctions between niche/innovative and commodity/standard offerings, supplied by a plural, innovative, and more cost-effective marketplace, with unprecedented implications for the way in which the state buys and deploys technology. We draw on a range of data from across public and private sectors to illustrate our argument and identify some key policy and implementation recommendations.

We welcome the increased emphasis on practice-based theories of knowing as an alternative to the more representational, knowledge-as-object approaches which have characterised many organizational attempts at 'knowledge management' to date. Building on the findings of a short empirical study into the 'knowledge management' initiatives of a global software organization, which highlighted the value of rich context in the generation of meaning, we seek to shed some light on a perceived confusion about the nature of organizational context. We show such context to be an inseparable part of knowing, which it creates and by which it is defined, and re-use Blackler's (1995) taxonomy of 'knowledge types' to illustrate the relational interaction between shared and deeply personal components of context. Finally, we use these insights to suggest a way in which organizations may be able to derive more value from their investments in internal initiatives by increasing their ability to support knowing - and hence the generation of meaning - amongst their employees. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.

on earlier drafts of this article.Particular thanks go also to the reviewers for their invaluable insights and continued support throughout the review process.