Communities of practice as an initiative for knowledge sharing in business organisations: a literature review

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to review the research and to summarise the evidence on communities of practice (CoPs) as a tool for sharing knowledge. It will highlight the related literature from the past two decades by looking at potential barriers, solutions and influential factors regarding CoPs within business organisations. Design/methodology/approach The study consists of a constructed approach to determine the sources for the review that covers relevant literature on the topic of CoPs. Findings This paper provides insights about the important role of CoPs in fostering knowledge-sharing within business organisations. It suggests that the impact of globalisation has encouraged many business firms to intentionally establish CoPs as a vital tool for knowledge management (KM) initiatives. It also appears that the importance of the three organisational factors – top management, structure and culture – lies in their ability to have a direct effect on intentionally established CoPs within business organisations. Research limitations/implications The paper suggests a number of ways in which intentionally established CoPs can be developed within business companies. This paper limited its review to three organisational factors. Investigation of other organisational factors is needed. Originality/value This paper provides a detailed insight into the management literature on CoPs as an initiative for knowledge sharing within business organisations.

Human Resource Management Contributions to Knowledge Sharing for a Sustainability-Oriented Performance: A Mixed Methods Approach

“…We understand that HRM should be studied from both an internal and an external approach at different levels (individual, organizational, and inter-organizational). CHRMS is based on alliances, relationships between partners, exchange of information or collaboration [28,39], e.g., all the relationships with external institutions such as universities, firms or the government.…”

Communities of practice in healthcare: A framework for managing knowledge sharing in operations

“…Assigning a person informal authority and making that person responsible for CoP well-being, practical tasks, stakeholder contacts, and meeting coordination is frequently found in association with successful CoPs (Aljuwaiber, 2016;Li et al, 2009). Such a role is named differently across studies: coordinator (Iaquinto et al, 2011;Wenger et al, 2002), facilitator (Cordery et al, 2015;Scarso et al, 2009;Schenkel & Teigland, 2008;Wolf et al, 2011), knowledge broker (Conklin, Lusk, Harris, & Stolee, 2013), leader (Probst & Borzillo, 2008), and discussant fellow (Rowley, Morriss, Currie, & Schneider, 2012).…”

“…Tacit knowledge sharing in organisations is associated with communities of practice (CoPs), and although some scholars describe a CoP as an activity which is self-organised by employees (Gabbay & le May, 2004;Orr, 1996), others suggest that a CoP can be intentionally developed to improve organisational knowledge sharing (Aljuwaiber, 2016;Barbour, Armstrong, Condron, & Palermo, 2018;Wenger et al, 2002). CoPs have been intentionally developed in a variety of contexts: finance (McDermott & Archibald, 2010), engineering (Schenkel & Teigland, 2008), healthcare (Li et al, 2009;Ranmuthugala et al, 2011), tourism (Akkerman, Petter, & Laat, 2008), and manufacturing (Yamklin & Igel, 2012).…”

Knowledge Management and Integrated Water Resource Management—Types of Knowledge and Key Considerations

“…Traditionally, within the knowledge management domain, explicit and tacit knowledge have been distinguished, where explicit knowledge is captured in easily transferable objects (e.g. documents and software), and tacit knowledge resides within individuals and requires interaction and informal learning processes, as the knowledge that is transferred is skill‐based and experiential (Aljuwaiber, 2016).…”

“…However, where knowledge is being shared across a network characterized by nationality diversity, the authors stressed the importance of face‐to‐face meetings, videoconferences, and teleconferences. Aljuwaiber (2016) concludes in his literature review of knowledge management and CoPs that technology‐based systems have the result of inhibiting the transfer of tacit knowledge, and as a result, direct human interaction is reduced. When possible, a knowledge broker should foster and encourage direct peer‐to‐peer connection through virtual or in‐person means to facilitate tacit knowledge transfer.…”