The impact communities of practice (CoPs) make can be understood in several different ways, depending on which theoretical perspective is used. For example, CoPs have been studied from a learning-theory perspective, from organizational development theory, and from a small-group theory. To understand the effects of participating in a CoP on individuals, groups or the organization in which they function, we could use traditional learning theory, organizational learning theory, information-processing theory or small-group process theory, etc. Or we could look at the internal processes of CoPs; the output they generate, or employ a synthesized view. CoPs can also be seen as impacting different actors in the organization in which they operate; individuals, groups or the whole organization. This means, for example, that we could look at CoPs from an organizational learning perspective to see how CoPs impact strategy development or renewal. At the level of the group, we could look at how CoPs lead to increased group performance and how that in turn leads to a higher output of knowledge products. And as learning is one of the key processes in a CoP, an important aspect of we need to study is how the individual learns, as well as what the individual learns. The complexity of impact a CoP can have on the diverse actors requires a pluralistic and multiperspective approach. However, a review of the literature showed no comprehensive model that neither integrates these different levels of impact nor employs multiple theoretical perspectives. Furthermore, most models of measurement or assessment use traditional types of output measurement, such as ROI, or anecdotal evidence that the CoP has improved organizational capability. Much like any human resource development initiative – which is the perspective of CoPs we take in this paper – there has been no real attempt to develop measures for assessing impact. We try to fill this gap by presenting a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, conceptual model that approaches measuring certain aspects a CoP has on individuals, groups and organizations.
In this Action planning document, the main objectives that are present from the overall KA COP4HL perspective to the local COPs are described. At the level of the local level of the COP the shared objective, which came out of the needs analysis process, are described per COP.In COP Groningen, the shared objective/goal will be: “stimulating a Healthy environment (physical & social) with focus on physical activity”. COP Malaga had three potential shared objectives but after a shared decision making procedure the unanimously decision was towards: “developing, implementing and evaluatingoutdoor fitness”. COP Odense will elaborate on an intermediary approach with the focus on the: “further develop and educate professionals who work on stimulating physical activity in community dwelling older adult”’.COP Kaunas defined the following shared objective: “to provide opportunities for primary school children and Kaunas district community members older than 50 more opportunities for exercising and physical activity”. COP Cascais will contribute the goal to: “develop, organize for and together with the stakeholders and end users (youngsters from 12-24 years old) activities focused on healthy lifestyle (e.g., healthy cooking workshops, parent-child physical activities etc.) embedded in approach GERAÇÃO S+ “.The next phase, after the decision on the shared objective of the COPs, is the action planning for the further COP development. A total of 7 steps are described.
In this chapter I would like to introduce the knowledge management concept known as communities of practice (CoPs) and show a direct link between CoPs and human resource development (HRD). CoPs are a proven way to effectively manage knowledge as well as promote organizational learning, so it is a logical step to aim HRD initiatives towards developing and supporting them. It is my experience that both the vision and operational goals of an organization’s HR department is exceptionally crucial in designing and supporting a learning organization and that CoPs are one strategy to achieving these goals. The set up of the chapter is as follows; in this section I present some of the advantages that communities can have for the organization and the individual. Then I give an introduction to what CoPs actually are and how they function, followed by a discussion of the link between HRD, CoPs and organizational learning. In section four I look at what kind of support CoPs need in order to thrive and in section five, I expand these concepts to include global communities. The following section looks at how technology enables CoPs – both local and global – and describes general guidelines for deciding which technology is appropriate for facilitating communities. My closing remarks consider the increasing role of Cops in HRM as well as some of their possible down-sides.
