David Shem-Tov: MSc-thesis outline: Knowledge diffusion mechanisms, information technology and communities of practice
Outline
The aim of this study is to analyze intra-firm knowledge diffusion mechanism in knowledge intensive organizations, both formal and informal. The emphasis will be on the informal mechanisms. My argument is based on the assumption that formal and informal mechanisms co-exist in an organization’s life.
The formal mechanisms are a product of division of labor, and hence designed for specific organizational purposes. To increase level of information flow on managerial processes; To coordinate divisions and functions in a better way; To control the organization; And to assure that the ‘wheel is not reinvented again’. These mechanisms usually take the form of IT tools. They are usually designed to serve the formal needs of management, i.e., information flow, control, and coordination. Moreover, these mechanisms are often outcome of rational thinking - ‘balance’ or ‘fit’ thinking (strategic alignment).
The other mechanisms that co-exist in the organizational life are informal. Their basic function, as I aim to prove, is to share information and knowledge, to improve social learning, and to maintain relationships. These informal mechanisms are a product of a sort of informal network- Communities of Practice. I believe that these informal mechanisms are often supported by the use of formal IT tools, as long as the IT enable informality and transfer of tacit knowledge.
Communities of practice
Much of the knowledge diffusion and organizational learning occur in communities of practice. They informal groups formed by people with a common problem and complementary skills and resources, characterized by shared know-how and shared sense-making (Brown & Duguid, 1998). People work together, learn together, and eventually form a community bound by the pursuit of the same goal. They develop shared understanding of work through mutual engagement.
The life cycle of the community is a function of the social energy that embedded in the group for learning. They are formed and vanish as a function of need for social learning. Every person is a member of this kind of communities whether they realize it or not (Wenger, 1997).
Communities of Practice, knowledge diffusion, and learning
Research has shown that the most organizational learning occurs in communities of practice, rather than what we thought to be in formal trainee programs (Stewart, 1996). The way in which members of the community learn is often through metaphors and stories they tell each other in regards to their work (Wenger, 1997; Brown & Duguid, 1998). The language and the specific codes the members of the community use are often not understandable to outsiders. Thus, much of the social learning in the community embedded in a tacit form of knowledge transfer.
But as we know most of the knowledge that embedded in formal knowledge diffusion mechanisms as IS and data bases is explicit knowledge. Hence, I will argue that acceptance of knowledge diffusion mechanisms is first: socially constructed. Second, the acceptance dependent upon the ability of the mechanism, e.g. IT application, to diffuse tacit knowledge.
Communities of practice are indeed an ‘engine of knowledge diffusion’. But we should also be aware to the fact, that in the way they make sense as a social group could easily limit their ability to collect more knowledge from the environment and other communities of practice. People make sense collectively and tend to look for experience that will justify their previous beliefs. Therefore, facing new information from the environment, people tend to filter it according to our previous beliefs rather than to challenge our ‘basic assumption’. (Weick, 1995)
Communities of practice tend to isolate themselves from other communities. We seldom see sociologists communicate with economists and even biochemists with chemists. Economists prefer to communicate among themselves determined by their belief that all the knowledge that exists outside their boundaries is irrelevant for their practical life.
Hence, the challenge of organizational learning is the creation of communication within and between communities of practice. Some think that a use of IT is able to close the gaps between communities and improve the communication between them. Just see the tremendous demand in the ERP market for systems as SAP and Oracle. However, studies have shown that knowledge diffusion demand social context more than IT tools.
Information technology, communities of practice, and knowledge diffusion.
The diffusion of knowledge within the organization is a reflection of social context. Information Technology has an essential role to play as a support mechanism for knowledge diffusion, but just if its responds to the social context.
Advanced and sophisticated IT tools are usually able to support diffusion of an explicit knowledge (Brown & Duguid), mainly because the demands of the IT tools for standardization and formality. While designing or purchasing a new IT tool these should take into consideration- the more the system will be formal the less it will be able to replace coffee rooms and water coolers.
In the case of KIO, the highly skilled workers tend to demand high level of autonomy and to resist standard routines and structured standardized approaches (Davenport et al. 1996). On the other hand, IT application usually demand standardization and formality, which are often not ‘accepted’ by the communities of practice.
The challenge
The aim of the study is: First to identify communities of practice. Second, to examine the way in which knowledge is diffuse within and between them. Third, to evaluate the social acceptability of formal mechanisms among certain communities. Fourth, to provide IT designers and decision-makers a social consideration concerning IT and knowledge diffusion.
Thus, the backbone of this study is embedded in the following question in which I intend to shed some light on.