Towards a Typology of Virtual Communities of Practice

Abstract

The literature is packed with "one-size-fits-all" advice on how to develop intentionally formed virtual communities of practice (VCoPs). However, a closer look at the literature shows that VCoPs often have unique "personalities." Based on an extensive review of the literature and a study of 18 VCoPs, we built a typology containing 21 structuring characteristics. We then used this typology and three of the studied VCoPs to show how different their basic natures are. Researchers and practitioners alike must not only recognize the diversity of VCoPs, but also identify challenges, strategies and practices that are contingent upon their specific characteristics.

If we only knew what we know: principles for knowledge sharing across people, practices, and platforms

“…They differ by stage of development [62], and they can be more or less spontaneous or intentional in origination. [16] in a study of 18 VCoPs identified 21 characteristics which could be grouped into a few types. Clearly a key factor to operational success is participants' perceived trust and commitment to both the domain and to each other [17,22,35].…”

The transfer of knowledge and the problems of identity in a managed and online context

“…It is widely accepted in the literature on virtual communities of practice that ICT is not a perfect substitute for face-to-face encounters or meetings and most virtual communities of practice need some face-to-face time to be most effective (Dubé, Bourhis & Jacob, 2006). Deprived of an abundance of face-toface contacts, especially at the beginning, virtual communities of practice may have problems or take longer to establish a sense of identity, or both (Cramton, 2001;Dubé et al, 2006).…”

“…Deprived of an abundance of face-toface contacts, especially at the beginning, virtual communities of practice may have problems or take longer to establish a sense of identity, or both (Cramton, 2001;Dubé et al, 2006). There can be several explanations for these challenges.…”

Mobility at work

“…Prominent works focus on co-located or distributed work groups (Dourish and Bly, 1992;Gupta et al, 2009), project teams (Evaristo et al, 2004;, consortia, alliances, and joint ventures (Ibrahim and Ribbers, 2009;Miles and Snow, 1995). Although less emphasis has been placed on individuals who do not work together under such hierarchical structures, we argue that it is important that managers understand how their decisions play a critical role (Dubé et al, 2006) in how workers self-organize as ''communities of communities'' (Brown and Duguid, 1991, p. 54). We also believe that it is timely to focus on mobility in a discussion of community-based knowledge sharing (Wasko and Faraj, 2000), as collaboration across organizational boundaries (e.g., Adebanjo and Michaelides, 2009;Elaluf-Calderwood et al, 2005;Kim, 2000;Lefebvre and Lefebvre, 2002;Wattal et al, 2010) increasingly happens through mobile IT.…”