Developing future successful CoPs: A conceptual framework

5.6.1 Introduction

The above discussion has led us to a position where we may now be able to suggest a conceptual framework to inform practice, the contribution required of a DBA. This framework is graphically represented in Fig 6 below.

Peripheral group LeaderShip : Trust, conscientious, influence, Communication, Collaborative, empathetic respectful, open

Knowledge in Motivation Practice Out

Self interest

Potential innovation

Engaged members

Boundary working reliant on relationships: Trust,

empathy, openness, willingness to contribute Tacit Sharing returned to CoP

In fo rm a ti o n f lo w L e a d e rsh ip : P u sh p u ll Peripheral Group Active group Core Group Formal meeting: Largely

Known knowledge sharing (explicit) with some experiences, storytelling

and deeper meaning

Lunch & coffee breaks: Deeper trusted sharing heavily tacit with personal

experiences and deeper knowledge sharing

Offline contact: Deep sharing of sensitive possibly challenging tacit

sharing both personally and to the CoP

Conference, seminars & Events: Explicit knowledge presented and tacitly shared

Explicit knowledge out: Papers, presentations & case studies

Leadership: To ensure tacit sharing occurring out with the core returns to the

core In forma tion flow Leadership: Pus h pull

155 From the study findings, we can combine the knowledge flow diagrams with the characteristic behaviours affecting tacit knowledge sharing into a conceptual model. This can be used to explain the sharing taking place, characteristics that affect sharing, where it takes place and therefore may inform the processes of tacit knowledge sharing in CoP practice. Importantly, we may then be able to describe and minimise the impact of those characteristics detrimental to CoP function and while doling so potentially design future CoPs that are sustainable and effective.

5.6.2 The conceptual framework

The virtuous circle of tacit to explicit knowledge sharing within the CoP, highlighted in Figure 4 (earlier in this chapter), presented two virtuous circles, the first, the tacit to explicit flow within the CoP and the second, that which occurred at the conferences events and seminars. Here, the first virtuous circle is absorbed into the conceptual framework removing the secondary circle that describes the knowledge flow beyond the CoP boundaries.

The conceptual framework Figure 6 brings together graphically the knowledge flow entering, traversing and exiting the CoP. The CoP boundary consists of three concentric circles. They represent the core group working, an active group working outside of the core and a peripheral group working at the edge of the CoP.

Working from left to right, we start with the actors bringing their practice knowledge (explicit) and their lived experience (tacit) to the CoP represented on the diagram by the ‘Knowledge in’. The arrow that leads from this square into the peripheral, active and core boundary zones depicts the key motivations for joining the CoP: told to join; interested in the topic and self-interest. The concentric circles therefore are notionally at this point representing Wenger et al’s. (2002) CoP Engagement Model (Figure 1). However, this framework overlays the CoP Engagement Model with tacit knowledge sharing flow (depicted by the two way arrow on the bottom left) that shows the flow from the core to the periphery and back. Further, the framework depicts the core (inner most circle) as the place the formal CoP meetings are occurring. This usually follows an agenda but it is suggested that space should be left for tacit knowledge sharing discussion.

The active zone (middle circle) often operates through coffee, lunch or social breaks around the formal meeting. Active zone CoP participants are seeking and sharing knowledge outside of the formal meeting. This can be on a one-to-one or group basis. It is suggested that this is the business hub in terms of building alliances between CoP members.

The periphery (outermost circle) indicates where one-to-one discussions take place often due to the perceived sensitivities of the subject or the anxiety of those seeking advice, caused by concerns about demonstrating their lack of knowledge or understanding to the wider community.

The second arrow (on the bottom right) described as ‘Leadership: Push Pull’ indicates the need for the leader and indeed the wider leadership to purposely harvest active or peripheral zone tacit knowledge sharing and return it to the core. In so doing, the wider membership may benefit from this returned sharing which is then added to by the wider membership experiences, enhancing further the CoP knowledge. It is suggested that this should become a cyclic process.

The three arrows exiting the CoP on the right indicate that successfully shared tacit knowledge may then leave the CoP though members taking back their individually enhanced knowledge to their institutions. The tacit knowledge which is then made explicit also leaves the CoP in the form of media such as case studies, toolkits and presentations. The ‘Practice Out’ box is then given new life through this media being used at conferences, seminars and practice based events. This relates to the second virtuous circle depicted in Figure 4 where CoP members networking with conference attendees discuss the explicit knowledge shared at the event. This is a further example of tacit sharing, the conference attendees adding their experiences as they discuss the case studies, presentations and toolkits. The CoP membership can then bring this new set of experiences back into the CoP and the virtuous circle begins again.

157 The CoPs, it is argued, are demonstrating a level of explicit to explicit combination as the ‘knowledge in’ entering the CoP is practice based known, often documented information. Tacit to tacit knowledge sharing (socialisation) then occurs through the sharing of experiences and know how within the concentric circles as described in the findings. Socialisation of the knowledge, the tacit to explicit knowledge sharing (externalisation), occurs through the preparation by the CoP of the media case studies, toolkits and presentations. The CoP would appear to be following the SECI model proposed by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) that may support the suggestion that CoPs are not only tacit knowledge sharing vehicles but can in fact be tacit knowledge converters.

The events and seminars themselves are a critical feature of ‘bridging the gap’ between the tacitness of information and the learnability or ‘stickiness’ of explicit ‘know how’ (McIver et al., 2012; Garavan, O’Brien & Murphy 2017). Although not all tacit sharing is captured and this type of tacit sharing occurs in other models of sharing, there would appear to be a uniqueness in the returning of this tacit sharing to the original CoP. Should this be the case it has the potential to add great value in that the CoP is extending the virtuous circle beyond its normal boundaries. Through their pivotal role in these events and activities the CoP membership are drawing on a ‘wider tacit resource’ before attempting to make it explicit within their CoP or CoPs.

Whilst not suggesting that Polanyi’s (1996) declaration that tacit knowledge cannot be codified is wrong, it is suggested that the dynamism of tacit knowledge is being addressed through this extended virtuous circle. By extending the virtuous circle the CoP membership appear to be gaining not only high levels of tacit knowledge being circulated back into their core but that this knowledge sharing is energised by its very dynamism. The CoP membership therefore should behave like those ‘society of explorers’ as described by Polanyi (1966) drawing energy and reviewing their understanding of the explicit through garnering tacit information. Their absorption of tacit knowledge during these extended sharing events should be a recognised activity and particular attention paid to returning it to the CoP where it re-enters the circle.