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

Abstract

Communities of practice (CoPs) have been adopted by several industries, in particular healthcare, and researchers have proposed explanatory frameworks and guidelines for development. However, first‐line managers are left with sparse research‐based advice on how to develop CoP due to a lack of empirical studies from operations. In response, this paper proposes and tests a framework for intentional development of CoPs in healthcare operations. The proposed framework is structured in six steps, which incorporate seven factors for CoP development as identified in the literature. A double case study test demonstrates that the proposed framework can be applied to develop CoPs within operations, resulting in knowledge sharing between CoP participants, creation of new knowledge, and improvement of practice. In particular, the tests find the following steps to be especially crucial for CoP development: An introduction to the manager of the functions and benefits of CoPs to ensure resource allocation (e.g., time to participate and a meeting room), choosing a practice with relevance for manager and employees, appointing a coordinator, and inviting employees to participate voluntarily. This paper contributes to CoP theory with explanations of how and why specific actions develop CoP within operations. The contribution to practitioners is a step‐by‐step framework to intentionally develop CoPs within operations to improve knowledge sharing and practice improvement.

Social capital, knowledge quality, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: An empirical study of the Indian pharmaceutical sector

“…In other words, explicit knowledge can be transferred in a formal, systemic language, whereas tacit knowledge is rooted in actions and involvement in a specific context (Nonaka, 1994;Polanyi, 1962). Therefore, a successful knowledge sharing process should involve complimentary methods for both explicit and tacit knowledge (Jørgensen, Scarso, Edwards, & Ipsen, 2018). Although it has been exhibited in previous researches that tacit knowledge transfer plays a significant role in fostering the innovation capability of an organization (Cavusgil et al, 2003), explicit knowledge can also lead to the creation of innovative ideas (du Plessis, 2007).…”

Exploring the maturity and development of global communities of practice

“…The TG members chose their topic (the practice, in CoP terms), and GEC offered enabling technology. With care, this approach can result in CoPs which the management finds relevant to support and employees care to participate in voluntarily, which are two fundamental elements of CoP development (Borzillo, ; Jørgensen et al, ).…”

“…The mentor is the experienced practitioner who interacts with and builds a relationship to the “newcomer,” who thereby learns to be a member of a specific community. The potential drawback is that new employees might not consider participation voluntary but something which is expected by GEC and enforced through face‐to‐face contact, which would be in stark contrast to the fundamental element of voluntary participation (Jørgensen et al, ; Wenger et al, ). The CoI mentor must therefore be aware of how new employees are approached and how CoI participation is framed.…”

“…CoPs facilitate interpersonal knowledge sharing resulting in improvements in work practices and complementing explicit knowledge‐sharing approaches (e.g., written guidelines; Cordery et al, ; Wenger, Snyder, & McDermott, ). While CoPs were originally associated with autonomous development (Lave & Wenger, ; Orr, ), there is mounting evidence that CoPs can be intentionally developed and managed through specific enablers (Aljuwaiber, ; Chu, ; Iaquinto, Ison, & Faggian, ; Jørgensen, Scarso, Edwards, & Ipsen, ; Ng & Ang, ).…”

“…Research has presented empirical evidence that intentionally developed CoPs impact positively on knowledge sharing and practice development (Jørgensen et al, ; Wenger et al, ). The advantages of CoPs include that past experience is re‐used (Cordery et al, ), knowledge is shared among practitioners (Chu, ), and tasks are standardised (Schenkel & Teigland, ).…”