Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Contribution of a Wiki to the Development of a Community of
Practice: A Case Study
Anna Maron
Student Number 200608889
Candidate Number 39325
ID499 Project Report
International Employment Relations and Human Resources Management 2006/7
Supervisor Jonathan Liebenau
Word Count 9995
1
Abstract
This study analyses the role played by a wiki (the WaterWiki) in the development of a
community of practice (CoP), established by the United Nations Development Program
(UNDP) in the spring of 2005. The study finds that the wiki did contribute to the
development of the CoP, however, not to the extent predicted by the literature on CoPs
and wikis. The wiki generated a sense of togetherness for the CoP; it functioned as a tool
for knowledge sharing in the CoP; and the technical features of the tool allowed it to act
as a vetted resource for the community. Despite these beneficial impacts, the study found
that the usage of the wiki is mainly limited to requests to post information and reminders
to contribute. This points towards the inability of the wiki to fulfil its potential of
functioning as a tool for knowledge sharing in practice. The study makes three key
reflections on why this may be the case. It argues that conventional perceptions of
knowledge as object, as opposed to knowledge as socially situated in practice, and of
knowledge as private good, in contrast to public good, prevail in the CoP. This hinders
the full use of the wiki tool. In addition, the study finds support for the recent call in the
CoP literature for the inclusion of a perspective of power in the analysis of CoPs.
2
Glossary
Community of Practice No one agreed upon definition. Wenger et al (2000:139)
provide this definition: “groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise
and passion for a joint enterprise”.
CoP Community of Practice
CoPs Communities of Practice
The facilitator The leader of the Water Governance Community of Practice
ICTs Information and Communication Technologies
Online/Virtual Community of Practice A Community of practice that mainly interact
online
UNDP United Nations Development Program
WGCoP Water Governance Community of Practice
Wiki “a series of web pages which can be structured and completed by anyone who has
been granted relevant access” (Ward, 2006:236).
3
Abstract................................................................................................................................2Glossary...............................................................................................................................31. Introduction......................................................................................................................62. Literature Review............................................................................................................7
2.1 Community of Practice..............................................................................................72.2. Online Communities of Practice...............................................................................92.3. Communities of Practice and Technology..............................................................102.4. Wikis and CoPs.......................................................................................................12
3. The Case and the Methodology.....................................................................................133.1 Background of the Water Governance Community of Practice..............................133.2 Methodology............................................................................................................13
4. Findings.........................................................................................................................144.1 Characterisation of the CoP.....................................................................................14
4.1.1 Demographics...................................................................................................144.1.2 Organisational Context....................................................................................144.1.3 Membership Characteristics.............................................................................154.1.4 Technological Environment..............................................................................16
4.2 Knowledge Sharing in the WGCoP.........................................................................174.2.1 Reasons for Sharing..........................................................................................174.2.2. Reasons for not Sharing...................................................................................18
4.3 The Wiki Contributing to the Development of the WGCoP...................................184.3.1 Togetherness.....................................................................................................194.3.2 Knowledge Tool................................................................................................194.3.3 The Technology.................................................................................................20
4.4 Only Limited Contribution......................................................................................225. Discussion -Three Key Reflections...............................................................................23
5.1 The Pervasiveness of Traditional Views of Knowledge..........................................235.1.1 The CoP Literature’s Critique of Conventional Views of Knowledge.............235.1.2 A Conventional View of Knowledge in the WGCoP.........................................255.1.3 The CoP Prefers Communication, Interaction, and Collaboration over Codification...............................................................................................................27
5.2 Knowledge not Considered a Public Good..............................................................285.2.1 Knowledge as Public Good..............................................................................285.2.2 Conception of Knowledge as Private Good in the WGCoP.............................295.2.3 Possible Future Mind Shift...............................................................................30
5.3 A Perspective of Power...........................................................................................315.3.1 Language..........................................................................................................315.3.2 Hierarchy..........................................................................................................33
6. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................356.1 Summary of Key Findings.......................................................................................356.2 Contributions of the Study.......................................................................................366.3 Implications for Practice..........................................................................................37
6.3.1 Managers..........................................................................................................376.3.2 IT Managers/Designers....................................................................................376.3.3 Academics.........................................................................................................38
6.4 Implications for Theory...........................................................................................38
4
6.4.1 CoP Theory.......................................................................................................386. 5 Limitations..............................................................................................................38
References..........................................................................................................................40
5
1. Introduction
Over the past decade, knowledge management has become a fashionable topic in
contemporary organisations. To accompany this trend, a large body of academic literature
has begun to address issues of knowledge and knowledge sharing in organisations. One
prominent body of work within this field is the literature on communities of practice
(CoPs). Since Lave and Wenger coined the term in 1991, this literature has been
extremely influential and has prompted organisations to implement communities of
practice to facilitate knowledge sharing within and beyond their organisational
boundaries. The purpose of this study is to analyse how a particular technology, the wiki
software, has contributed to the development of a community of practice, the Water
Governance Community of Practice (WGCoP), established in 2005 by the United Nations
Development Program’s (UNDP) Regional Centre for Europe and CIS.
The study finds that the wiki technology has contributed to the development of the CoP,
although not to the extent predicted by the literature on CoPs and wiki technology. The
wiki has provided a sense of togetherness for the CoP; it has functioned as a useful
knowledge tool for the community; the technology itself has proven easy to use by the
members; and its specific features have allowed it to work as a vetted resource for the
CoP. Despite these benefits, the wiki has not developed into the collaboration and
communication tool that can enable active knowledge sharing in practice, predicted by
the literature on CoPs and wikis. In addition, there is a difference in the level of
contribution made by the wiki to the work of the WGCoP facilitator, the UNDP member
responsible for establishing and leading the development of the wiki, and to the work of
its members, the UNDP and non-UNDP water governance practitioners who engage in
the community and who are the primary users and intended contributors to the wiki.
The study makes three reflections on these findings. First, the limited contribution of the
wiki is due to the prevailing perception of knowledge in the WGCoP. The facilitator and
the members view knowledge as an object present in the minds of individuals, to be
extracted, codified and stored in the wiki. This hinders the WGCoP from working with
6
the wiki as a tool for collaboration and communication in practice. Second, knowledge in
the WGCoP is viewed as a private, rather than a public good. This similarly impacts on
the ability of the WGCoP members to utilise the wiki to its full extent. Last, the study
finds support for including a perspective of power in the analysis of CoPs.
2. Literature Review
The literature on communities of practice and wiki technology straddles the fields of
organisational studies, knowledge management, information systems, education, and
computer science. This paper draws mainly on literature from the first three fields.
2.1 Community of Practice
The notion and theory of communities of practice emerged in the early 1990s as a
critique on conventional conceptions of human learning as an individual phenomenon
(Brown et al, 1989). This social theory viewed knowledge and learning as a complex
social process and rejected the perspective that learning takes place inside the minds of
individuals as well as the idea that knowledge exists only in people’s heads (Simon,
1991:125; Grant 1996; Liebeskind, 1996). Lave and Wenger (1991) developed a social
theory, Situated Learning Theory, which positioned all learning and knowledge as
embedded in practice and situated in the context of communities of practice. Rather than
seeing knowledge and learning in organisations as static or objectified, or in a
functionalist manner, the theory on communities of practice saw learning as emerging out
of shared practice and knowledge as socially constituted through practice. Most authors
within this literature recognise that a community of practice (CoP) is the context within
which individuals develops shared practices, norms, identities and meanings specific to
that community (Handley et al, 2006:642). Members engage in the community through
participation, communication and collaboration. This social process will enable learning,
knowledge sharing and knowledge creation in the community. The community of
7
practice is therefore seen as an intrinsic condition of the existence of knowledge (Lave &
Wenger, 1991:98).
Brown and Duguid (1991; 1999; 2001), further developed the CoP approach by drawing
on Orr’s (1996) study of service technicians working for Xerox. These Xerox
practitioners shared knowledge and experience of their jobs on a regular basis and as a
result developed a shared meaning, identity, and understanding of how to get the job done
within their community of technicians (Brown & Duguid, 1999). Based on Orr’s
observations, Brown and Duguid argued that knowledge is highly dependent on the
context in which learning takes place and understanding the process of learning and
knowledge in organisations requires looking at the actual practice of work. Knowledge in
all organisations is an active process where employees from different domains engage in
collaborative work and utilise their different histories and experiences (Hayes &
Walsham, 2001:264). “Through practice, a community of practice develops a shared
understanding of what it does, of how to do it, and how it relates to other communities
and their practices—in all, a “world view.”” (Brown & Duguid, 1999:32). Although no
one clear and unified definition of a CoP exist, most authors tend to agree that CoPs are
informal, self-organising networks dedicated to sharing knowledge in an area of common
interest or expertise (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Practitioners that share a common practice
assemble or connect through extensive communication and interaction. A common sense
of purpose and a desire to share work-related knowledge and experience will develop
(Wenger, 1998).
Wenger (1998; 2000), Wenger and Snyder (2000) and Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder
(2002) further expanded the theory by recognising that communities of practice can be
used as a tool for knowledge management within organisations. Wenger et al (2002)
develop a recipe constituting seven steps for cultivating communities of practice in
organisational settings. CoPs have in the last half decade been extremely popular
knowledge management tools both within the public and the private sector.
8
This move towards a more managerialist conception of CoPs as a knowledge
management tool have been criticised lately by authors who argue that the CoP theory
lacks recognition of how relations of power impact on CoPs and knowledge sharing
(Contu & Wilmott 2000, 2003; Fox, 2000; Marshall & Rollinson, 2004; Yanow, 2004;
Roberts, 2006). Although these authors incorporate aspects of power in different ways,
they all critique the notion of CoPs as a unified and homogenous group of people who
share and learn in a conflict-free and peaceful community. Fox (2000:860), for example,
building on Foucault and Actor Network Theory, regards learning as an outcome of a
process of a local struggle. Marshall and Rollinson (2004) argue that members of a CoP
are continuously negotiating meanings and understanding within the community, and this
negotiation inevitably involves issues of power. They see knowledge and power as
mutually constituted in organisations and CoPs. Members of a CoP are constantly
negotiating and redefining knowledge and power relations as part of their ongoing
practice. Roberts (2006) makes the argument that an organisation’s overall power
structures may be reflected in the power relations of its communities and will differ
depending on whether the organisation has a hierarchical or network type structure. In
more hierarchical organisations, more centralised relations of power may also be evident
in the CoPs within these organisations. Veenswijk and Chisalita (2007) argue that
considering power in the analysis of a CoP will provide a better understanding of its
internal and external development.
2.2. Online Communities of Practice
Over the past half decade, with the increased use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs), many authors have noted that much interaction and communication
within CoPs take place, not face-to-face, but online. This has become known as the
literature on Online or Virtual Communities of Practice. Although theoretically less
developed than the ‘original’ CoP theory, the concept of online CoPs retains many of the
fundamental aspects of the CoP theory that emerged out of situated learning theory, The
9
view that a CoP (or Online CoP in this case) is a group of people that share knowledge
and expertise within a common practice is the basis of the theory (Bourhis et al, 2005).
This literature, however, does not continue the emphasis on meaning and identity so
prominent in CoP literature, and it struggles to incorporate the fundamental tenet of the
CoP theory first developed by Lave and Wenger (1991), namely that knowledge and
learning is socially situated in practice.
Many of the initial works on online CoPs came out of the education literature (e.g., Barab
& Duffy, 2000; Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999), the computer science literature
(Kondratova & Goldfarb, 2004), or focused primarily on online communities, not online
communities of practice; (Kim, 2000; Preece, 2000). Kimble et al (2001), writing in the
field of knowledge management, identified online CoPs as useful tools for organising
knowledge in international organisations. Lately Bourhis et al (200) and Dube et al
(2004; 2006) have defined online or virtual CoPs, as CoPs who rely mainly on ICTs for
connecting practitioners without excluding face-to-face meetings altogether. Relying
primarily on the internet for communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing will
free the CoP members from constraints of time and space (Dube et al: 2006). These
authors argue that each online CoPs is different and they have developed a system of
structuring characteristics to identify and describe online CoPs. Characteristics relating to
demographics, organisational context, membership and technological environment are
used to distinguish such a community (Dube et al, 2006)
2.3. Communities of Practice and Technology
The online CoP literature in the knowledge management tradition does not generally
analyse in depth, or criticise, the specific role technology plays in the development of a
CoP. Wenger et al (2005:1, 2) argue that "technology plays an increasingly important role
in the life of many communities" as their activities “are often mediated, supported, or
enhanced by technology”. In two very influential reports on the use of technologies in
10
communities of practice, Wenger et al advice organisations and managers on the type of
technologies best utilised by CoPs and how these technologies can be implemented
within the community (Wenger, 2001; Wenger et al, 2005). The authors identify e-mail,
wikis, and blogs as particularly useful in distributed CoPs for knowledge sharing,
interaction, and communication (2005). Other authors question the ability of ICTs to
transfer knowledge. Roberts (2000), for example, argue that ICTs are unable to transfer,
in particular tacit knowledge (knowledge that is hard to articulate or explain), as this type
of knowledge must be shared between people in a CoP that engage face-to-face. Many
authors, however, disagree with this position, as they see ICTs as particularly useful for
supporting CoP development (Hampel, 2005; Pan & Leidner, 2003; Walsham,
2001;Walsham & Barrett, 2005; Schwen & Hara, 2003;Wenger, 2001, 2005).
The community of practice literature specifically state that knowledge is socially
constituted in practice within a community. The sharing of knowledge through ICTs may,
therefore, intuitively be difficult to reconcile with this position, as, just as Roberts (2000)
point out, much knowledge is tacit and can not be transferred through electronic or digital
means, but must be shared socially in practice. Erickson & Kellogg (2001) note that the
socially situated nature of knowledge must be recognised by all knowledge management
systems. Walsham (2005), furthermore, note that technologies for CoPs must enable
sharing of tacit knowledge, not just the transfer of explicit information, through
interaction between the members in the CoP. McLure-Wasko & Faraj (2000) make a
similar point when they argue that knowledge sharing in communities of practice is best
suited for technologies that enable communication and collaboration since these have the
ability to support the sharing of tacit knowledge. Technologies used by CoPs can
therefore not be regarded as homogeneous (Hays &Walsham, 2001), as different
technologies have varying ability to aid sharing of knowledge that is socially situated in
practice and knowledge that is tacit. Not all technologies can be regarded as suitable for
knowledge sharing in CoPs.
11
2.4. Wikis and CoPs
A wiki is a relatively new technology that has the ability to enable interaction and
collaboration online in a CoP. Ward (2006:236) defines wikis as “a series of web pages
which can be structured and completed by anyone who has been granted relevant access”.
Wikis can be used as a collaboration and project management tool and/or as a knowledge
resource. All users have the power to edit, add new pages, change the structure, and
correct mistakes in a simple and straight-forward way (Tredinnick, 2006). Many authors
note the usefulness and suitability of this kind of technology to communities of practice.
Fuchs-Kittowski & Kohler (2005a; 2005b) note that wikis are well suited for knowledge
sharing in communities of practice as they enable communication and collaboration, as
opposed to only knowledge storage, which is common of many traditional knowledge
management systems. Tredinnick (2006) argue that since wikis have the ability to change
and adapt with the needs of its users, it has the potential to recognise the socially situated
nature of knowledge in a CoP. As all users have the power to edit and change the content
of a wiki, this technology is less focused on control (in contrast to many other
computerised systems used in organisations) and more focused on interaction. Rolland
argues that for this reason wikis are suitable for knowledge sharing in distributed CoPs
(Rolland, 2006). Walsham (2005:26), however, notes that these new types of
technologies offer important opportunities for knowledge sharing in practice, but whether
these are taken up depends on human agency.
To summarise, the literature relevant to this case study is relatively broad and covers
many fields of research. The literature pertaining specifically to wikis and CoPs is still
very much in its infancy. The more general literature on technologies as applicable to
CoPs provide a much better insight into the use of specific technologies than do the
knowledge management literature that specifically address CoPs whose primary
interaction is online. The ‘original’ CoP literature, however, offers the most theoretically
insightful account of the work of communities of practice.
12
3. The Case and the Methodology
3.1 Background of the Water Governance Community of Practice
The Water Governance Community of Practice (WGCoP) was established at United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) in the spring of 2005. The Water Governance
Facilitator (hereafter the facilitator) had newly joined the UNDP Regional Bureau for
Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States and was, as part of his job
specification, required to establish and facilitate the development of a community of
practice for water governance in the region. Two years after the establishment of the CoP
the community has 170 members, about half of which are UNDP staff. The rest of the
CoP consists of practitioners working with, or with an interest in, issues of water
governance in the Europe and CIS region. These non-UNDP members belong to other
United Nations agencies; different development agencies; water governance NGOs; and
government representatives; or are students with interest in water in the region;
consultants; or practitioners from the private sector. Soon after the set-up of the CoP, a
wiki (the WaterWiki) was established to enable knowledge sharing between the
practitioners. In addition to sharing knowledge in the wiki, the CoP share knowledge
through an e-mail list (RBEC-water e-mail list), and communicate bilaterally via e-mail,
Skype, and telephone.
3.2 Methodology
This qualitative case study uses a mixed method based on a survey with 28 CoP member
respondents, interviews with 10 CoP members (six UNDP CoP members, including the
facilitator, and four non-UNDP members), e-mail records from the RBEC-water e-mail
list, and information posted in the WaterWiki. The survey was structured using a Lickert
scale format and the interviews were semi-structured approaching informal. The
interviews were relatively short (around 30 minutes) and were undertaken during April
2007. See interview responses in the appendix under respective sections.
13
4. Findings
4.1 Characterisation of the CoP
In order to produce a comprehensive picture of the CoP and its use of the wiki technology
this section will utilise, to the extent possible, Dube et al’s (2004; 2006) & Bourhis et al’s
(2005) structuring characteristics. In my opinion virtual or online CoPs should not be
distinguished from ‘traditional’ CoPs since most CoPs today (at least in the developed
world) communicate and share knowledge online to some degree. However, the typology
by Bourhis et al and Dube et al is useful for providing a thorough depiction of the UNDP
Water Governance CoP in Europe & CIS.
4.1.1 Demographics
The WGCoP was developed with the aim of connecting the water governance
practitioners that worked across the region and to facilitate sharing of knowledge and
experience between them. UNDP has offices in all countries in Eastern Europe and the
CIS region. Communication and knowledge sharing prior to the setup of the WGCoP and
the wiki mainly took place via the regional centre in Bratislava, where the facilitator is
located. The CoP was developed to enable knowledge sharing on a permanent, rather
than ad hoc basis. It has now been in existence for two years and is therefore relatively
young.
4.1.2 Organisational Context
The creation of the WGCoP was intentional rather than spontaneous. The establishment
of communities of practice is an essential component of UNDP’s knowledge
management strategy and the facilitator was therefore expected to lead the establishment
14
of a WGCoP for the region. Although the WGCoP was established by the UNDP, the
objective was to cross organisational boundaries to include as many practitioners as
possible involved in water governance issues in the region. Therefore the WGCoP would
facilitate learning and knowledge sharing between a multitude of organisations as well as
donors and stakeholders. As mentioned above, around half of the WGCoP members are
non-UNDP staff which means the CoP can be said to have a high level of boundary
crossing. The environment, within which the WGCoP was developed, was enabling,
rather than obstructing, in political, economic and cultural ways. As a development
organisation, UNDP encourages active knowledge sharing throughout the organisation,
there is a culture of debate and discussion, and funds are supplied to support knowledge
management activities. The WGCoP has a degree of formalism, as the community is to a
very large extent recognised by the wider organisation, and can therefore attain both
legitimacy and funding.
The leadership of the WGCoP was from the beginning the facilitator, this has never been
questioned or negotiated. The facilitator is based at the regional UNDP office in
Bratislava and his role from the start was to facilitate the establishment of the WGCoP
and he has since been the key figure to motivate, encourage, and hold the community
together. Most postings in the e-mail list and in the wiki are made by the facilitator.
Several interview respondents note the important role played by the facilitator both in
developing and maintaining the CoP and in advancing the wiki.
4.1.3 Membership Characteristics
The WGCoP is of intermediate size (170 members) and consists of a core of more active
members and a periphery of ‘lurkers’ who are members but their presence is rarely
shown. Geographical dispersion is high and covers several time zones from Central
Europe to the most eastern parts of Central Asia. Meeting face-to-face is both costly and
difficult with many countries in the region having strict entry requirements. Despite this
most of the WGCoP members meet regularly at least once a year in community of
15
practice meetings. The UNDP staff members may meet more often but in smaller
numbers. Membership in the WGCoP is open to everyone working on, or with an interest
in, water governance issues in the region. Aspiring members can make a request to the
facilitator to join the e-mail list. The wiki is public for anyone to view but editing is only
granted to WGCoP members. Enrolment in the WGCoP is compulsory for all UNDP staff
members who work on water-related issues. All WGCoP members have equal access to
edit and contribute to the wiki as well as to view previous posts.
In addition to membership in the WGCoP, UNDP practitioners may simultaneously be
members of other CoPs established by the organisation. The reason for this is that each
country may only have one member of staff responsible for environment related projects.
This practitioner will therefore be member of, for example, the Environment CoP, the
Biodiversity CoP, and any other CoP that may be relevant to his or her job. The
membership in the WGCoP is relatively stable with few practitioners leaving but new
ones regularly added. There is great cultural diversity between the members as the region
is vast and the hierarchical levels members occupy vary significantly, from administrative
staff and students to governmental officials and high-paid consultants.
4.1.4 Technological Environment
The reliance on technology in the WGCoP is very high with most of the knowledge
sharing taking place in the wiki and through e-mail lists. The next section will look at
how knowledge sharing takes place in the community with a very large part of this
occurring through technology.
16
4.2 Knowledge Sharing in the WGCoP
4.2.1 Reasons for Sharing
This section will discuss the findings, from the survey and the interviews, relating to the
reasons CoP members engage, share, and contribute to the WGCoP, both to the
community as a whole, and to the wiki specifically. In addition, the section will address
the findings on barriers and constraints to knowledge sharing in the community.
The interviews found that an important reason why members engage and contribute to the
WGCoP is to stay connected to the rest of the community and the practitioners working
in the same field as them. The members value the ability to reach out to other members as
well as to keep up to date on what other practitioners are working on at any one time. The
wiki has played a significant part in informing the members of each others’ work. One
non-UNDP member makes the following comment;
[It is] interesting … to look into who has been doing what on the wiki lately, what
they have been reading and so on, and then get a sense of where their heads are
and what they are thinking.
Another UNDP member notes the importance of engaging in the CoP for achieving
outreach for their own activities: “It’s very important because it helps give a regional, and
even global, impact to projects that would otherwise be limited to Cyprus”.
The most significant reason for contributing and engaging in the WGCoP is to share
knowledge and experience. This was supported by both the survey and the interviews.
Most members prefer to share knowledge face-to-face but, as this is costly and difficult,
knowledge sharing is mostly undertaken through the e-mail list and the wiki. More
members use the wiki for sharing experiences and knowledge (stories, ideas, opinions,
lessons learned etc) than for storing information such as documents and reports. One
UNDP member commented that the wiki is useful for finding "methodologies, techniques
17
and approaches that other countries use in the projects. I am interested in ideas so you
don't have to re-invent the wheel, this is what the WaterWiki is good for". The e-mail list
shows that the members pose water related question to each other as well as forward
news on events and job openings.
4.2.2. Reasons for not Sharing
The biggest constraint to engagement and contribution to the WGCoP and the wiki was
time, which was a finding in both the survey and in the interviews. In addition, lack of
water related projects meant that the practitioners did not have any knowledge to share
with fellow practitioners. Another important constraint mentioned by many of the
interview respondents is the simultaneous membership in too many CoPs. As mentioned
earlier each UNDP staff member is required to be member of several CoPs as their role
may span several fields, this means that the time the practitioners can allocate to each
CoP is limited. One UNDP members makes this comment, "UNDP has too much of
knowledge management. I'm signed up to so many knowledge management networks so
it gets a complicated. You can't get on with your regular work". Another UNDP member
agrees, "[there are] too many networks and too many similar things going on, we are
constantly bombarded with e-mails asking questions".
4.3 The Wiki Contributing to the Development of the WGCoP
This section analyses reasons for why the wiki can be regarded as having contributed to
the development of the WGCoP, as well as indications of why this may not have been the
case. The section concludes that the wiki has contributed to the development of the
WGCoP, although not to the extent predicted by the literature on wikis and CoPs.
18
4.3.1 Togetherness
Wenger et al (2005) argue that a CoP develop a sense of togetherness that extends
through time and space. But this togetherness is most easily manifest in specific activities
or practices located in the same time and space. This means that separation in time and
space, such as in the case of the WGCoP, is a dilemma for a community. Technologies,
however, can help to overcome this dilemma. Wenger et al (2005:2) argue that “one
critical role of technology then is to provide resources for making togetherness more
continuous, in spite of separation in time and space”. Many comments made by the
interview respondents indicate that the CoP member value the fact that the wiki
overcomes the constraints of time and space separation. One UNDP member, for
example, thinks the wiki is good for "knowing who is doing what [and to] learn about
past experiences”. A non-UNDP member notes the important role played by the wiki in
bringing everyone in the community closer in their work, while another UNDP
practitioner comments that contributing to and editing in the wiki gives a sense of
“unitedness”. The facilitator believes that the sense of togetherness has been generated by
the wiki. He remarks, “[It’s] a common cool gadget that everybody knows about … [It is]
bringing people together mentally.” Following Barab et al (2004), this idea of an artefact
embodying the identity of a community is known as ‘reification’.
4.3.2 Knowledge Tool
The wiki can also be said to have contributed to the development of the CoP since it has
provided a much valued and an important knowledge and information tool. The wiki has
vastly improved the practitioner’s access to knowledge and information on water in the
region. One non-UNDP member makes this comment, “I'm a fan of having our own little
'Britannica', which is how I see the WaterWiki”. He continues, “It’s a lot more than a
telephone directory, it’s got a lot of good information”. The wiki has also, as noted
above, enabled the practitioners to share knowledge, experiences, and lessons learned
19
from projects. However, it should be pointed out here that this sharing has most of the
time not come spontaneously.
An additional important benefit and contribution made by the wiki is that it has increased
the salience of the issue of water governance and thereby contributed indirectly to the
development of the WGCoP. Three of the interview respondents noted the important
contribution the WaterWiki is making to the issue of water governance in the region. One
UNDP member explains that for him the WaterWiki opened his eyes to water issues. "If
the wiki didn't happen I wouldn't think of the issue of water as a subject". Another UNDP
member recognises the importance of such a knowledge tool for the future, "It is the only
specific network that focuses on water and as water becomes a major issue I think this is
important to keep". Finally, a non-UNDP member assigns the following significance to
the WaterWiki;
Anything that this type of exercise on water governance can produce at the
beginning of the century may help to dampen the rhetoric and the political sword
waving that will come later when fresh water access becomes more critical than
energy.
Although this contribution may be indirect, it could be regarded as evidence that the wiki
contributing to a sense of meaning and identity for the WGCoP.
4.3.3 The Technology
The particular technology and pattern of usage also provide support for argument that the
wiki has contributed to the development of the WGCoP. The survey shows that the usage
of the wiki is high, with only a very small number of the respondents never having used
the wiki. Despite this type of technology being completely new to most of the
practitioners, both the survey and interviews indicate that the WGCoP members do not
find the technology difficult to use and that many of the members like the ‘look and feel’
20
of the software. This is interesting considering that wikis are text based, have a very
simple look, and lack any predetermined structure. In addition all users that want to edit
in the wiki must learn a specific text type known as ‘wiki text’. One of the interview
respondents compared the wiki to the e-mail list and made this remark
WaterWiki … is good because you can put all relevant materials there and the
people who are interested can get in touch with you. I actually don't like this
exchange of global e-mails in the e-mail list. I don't think that it is useful.
This comment is important because it highlights that technologies and their use can not
be considered as homogeneous, as studies in the virtual communities of practice literature
view technology. Types of technology utilised by CoPs must be explained and
differentiated, as all technologies have different functions and each community choose to
work with technologies in different ways.
One important function of the wiki, and contribution to the WGCoP, is its ability to work
as a vetted resource for the community. The practitioners have themselves added and
edited the content of the wiki. This feature creates a sense of trust in the posted
knowledge and fellow members, since members know their fellow CoP colleagues are
contributing. One UNDP member describes this as “a constant peer review process"
where "people keep on adding to the knowledge base that has been created". Another
non-UNDP member compares looking for knowledge and information in the wiki to
searching through Google;
It serves as a vetted resource. The information that is there has been vetted, this is
a benefit above using Google ... [It’s] a very useful way to access and share
information, it cuts down on search time.
One of the UNDP members, however, cautions against the possibility of erroneous
information being posted and not noticed.
21
4.4 Only Limited Contribution
The community of practice literature states that CoP members engage in communities out
of a desire to share knowledge and learn from experience (Breu & Hemingway, 2002).
The computer science literature on wikis predict that users will share knowledge out of
altruism (Wagner & Prasarnphanich, 2007) while the literature that combines wikis and
CoPs note that wikis are well suited for CoPs as they enable members to communicate
and collaborate (Fuchs-Kittowski & Kohler, 2005a; 2005b); they have the potential to
recognise that knowledge is socially situated (Tredinnick, 2006); and, similar to CoPs
(Veenswijk & Chisalita, 2007), they counteract the hierarchical structures of the
traditional bureaucratic organisation (Rolland, 2006). Despite the contributions made by
the WaterWiki to the development of the WGCoP, few of these predictions have so far
been realised.
The contributions noted above relate to the wiki functioning as a common knowledge and
information tool that bring the WGCoP closer together and enable a degree of trust and
identity. There is little evidence, however, to suggest that knowledge sharing in practice
through participation, collaboration, and communication is taking place. Although the
survey and interviews found that the wiki was mostly used for knowledge sharing, the
interviews strongly indicated that the members use the wiki to the extent that they are
required to, asked to, or reminded to do so by the facilitator. The WGCoP members do
not share knowledge spontaneously out of desire to share their experiences and expertise.
Furthermore, initiatives to collaboratively write documents in the wiki have not been
successful.
The facilitator makes this comment about the WGCoP members; “they consume
knowledge, but to make them contribute and share we were never able to”. One UNDP
member notes that his involvement in the wiki “is limited to following the request to
place information”. The facilitator regularly sends out requests and reminders through the
22
e-mail list for the WGCoP members update or add content in the wiki. In addition, most
of the content in the wiki has been added by the facilitator himself. He makes this remark
on the importance of the WaterWiki to his work;
“For me it's a huge and great resource, it replaces my C-drive in a sense. All
relevant information for me that is work related and substantive is up there, well
except certain contracts, but everything else. It's a great resource”.
It appears, therefore, that the wiki has vastly contributed to the work of the facilitator as it
has been a useful tool for organising his work. For the practitioners, however, the
contribution has been limited to a useful resource. For neither of them has the wiki
worked as a collaboration tool that enables knowledge sharing in practice through
participation and communication. When asked about what contribution the wiki has made
to their work, no WGCoP member believes the wiki has made a noticeable contribution.
They cite the reasons noted above; not enough time, lack of water-related projects, and
involvement in too many CoPs. These reasons are all tangible and immediate, but the
may be more fundamental and underlying reasons for why the wiki has failed to spur the
predicted spontaneous collaboration and communication between the members, or enable
knowledge sharing in practice, in the WGCoP. This will be discussed in the next section.
5. Discussion -Three Key Reflections
5.1 The Pervasiveness of Traditional Views of Knowledge
5.1.1 The CoP Literature’s Critique of Conventional Views of Knowledge
One of the major contributions of the literature on communities of practice is the move
away from the conventional view of knowledge as objectified, static and individual,
23
towards knowledge as processual and indeterminate, and always situated in practice
(Marshall & Rollinson, 2004). Orlikowski (2002:250) describes this traditional view very
well:
Significant portions of this work … treat knowledge as either a thing (to be
captured, stored, transmitted, etc.) or a disposition (whether individual or
collective) resulting in "objectivist reification" on the one hand or "subjectivist
reduction" on the other". There is a difference between the view of knowledge as
separate entity, static property, or stable disposition embedded in practice, and a
view of knowledge as "at any given time, what the practice has made it.
Cook and Brown (1999) argue that this view of knowledge draw upon an ‘epistemology
of possession’, since it treats knowledge as a “distinct, self-sufficient entity that
individuals and groups can possess, share, pass on, acquire, lose and recover” (Marshall
& Rollinson, 2004:S73). This perspective on knowledge privileges explicit over tacit
knowledge, and knowledge possessed by individuals, over knowledge possessed by
groups.
Instead, these authors endorse a view of knowledge based on an epistemology of practice,
embodied in the community of practice literature. This view, as described in the literature
review above, sees knowledge as socially situated in practice; never static, never
objectified, but always processual and indeterminate, enacted through practice within the
community. Knowledge and meaning is produced, reproduced, and changed when people
act and interact, participate, communicate and collaborate (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p.
51).
As noted above the wiki technology offers a potential for the WGCoP to overcome the
static, objectivist view of knowledge by providing an opening for the community to
interact, communicate, and collaborate via the technology. The technology allows each
practitioner to connect with the community and contribute through editing and updating
in a continuous process of generation and regeneration of what constitutes knowledge in
24
the community. The software is dynamic, not static, and depends on the full contribution
and participation of the WGCoP members. It allows a move away from knowledge
management systems that end up as ‘digital junkyards1’ or ‘knowledge repositories2’
(Rolland, 2006:143,145) to a dynamic process of interaction between the technology and
the practitioners, and between practitioners in the WGCoP. Through a process of
communication, collaboration, and participation, the community can, despite being
separated in space and time, enable and share knowledge in practice. The interviews and
the survey clearly show, however, that this is not occurring. Rather, a static, functionalist
and individualist view, the epistemology of possession, is dominant and pervasive both
within the WGCoP and the UNDP itself. This may provide an explanation for why the
wiki technology has not fully lived up to its potential to enable the WGCoP to share and
generate knowledge through practice.
5.1.2 A Conventional View of Knowledge in the WGCoP
From the earliest days of the CoP and the wiki, the aim of the establishment of the wiki
was to codify knowledge that existed in the heads of the practitioners and make it
available for everyone in the WGCoP to use. The notion that knowledge is a ‘thing’ that
can be extracted from people’s heads and stored in a computer system for all to consume
was therefore very much present at UNDP and in the mind of the facilitator. The
facilitator makes this comment;
From the beginning I had the idea that whenever someone had a great idea or an
experience to share there should be a way to share and codify this to make it
accessible to others.
1 Digital junkyards are information storage places that render information inaccessible and consequently unused. 2 A knowledge repository consists of servers where knowledge indices and, often knowledge artifacts (documents, presentations, databases, charts, graphs, plans, audio files, and/or video files) are made accessible.
25
This resonates with the knowledge management view promoted at KPMG; “the ‘dream’
of executive management in utilizing ICT is that ‘when one person learns something,
everyone else in the company knows it” (KPMG, 1999 in Chumer et al., 2000: xviii).
There was no initial emphasis on interaction or communication between the community
members. The facilitator notes; “in the beginning I wasn’t thinking about communication,
I was thinking about codification.” When asked about whether the wiki and the WGCoP
have been successful, the facilitator admits that the process has been difficult.
If you say that success is really actively shared and codified knowledge, projects
and activities, then I think it's a bit less successful ... There is a lot out there that
hasn't been captured.
But if knowledge is not ‘a thing’ to be captured, extracted and codified from the heads of
the CoP members, if knowledge is socially enacted through practice, then it is not
surprising that the WGCoP has been unsuccessful in its aim of sharing knowledge within
the community.
The practitioners themselves show that they have a similar notion of knowledge to that of
the facilitator, that is, as objects that can be stored in a system, and they are, therefore,
unable to view the wiki as anything more than ‘a telephone directory’ or a ‘little
Britannica’. One UNDP member questions the relevance of knowledge management in
general. He makes the following comment; "it would be good to find some example of
[how] people improved their work, received money, found partners etc by sharing
knowledge and information". The perception of knowledge management as codification
is not perceived as productive despite the significant investment made by UNDP in
knowledge management. The idea that knowledge equals codification turns knowledge
sharing into a chore for many of the practitioners. When knowledge is viewed as codified
experiences that are stored in the wiki or any other system, practitioners tend not to see
its value. Another UNDP member expresses her reluctance and procrastination over
actively engaging and sharing:
26
[There is] no extra time to contribute to the network. Although the issues are
interesting and challenging, there is mostly no time to write, summarise and post.
Although there is a requirement now that we should contribute at least two times
to the network, that's the mechanism the management uses to incentivise us.
The same member continues…
I don't upload enough information. I put it on my to-do list but it is always
somewhere at the end. It's unfortunate because we have a lot to share. But what
helps is that when people approach me, I send them the documents by e-mail. It's
a matter of being committed, I have to have a personal commitment, put it in the
calendar and update my WaterWiki page on a regular basis. It's a matter of
personality, some people enjoy it a lot, it depends on the person.
5.1.3 The CoP Prefers Communication, Interaction, and Collaboration over Codification
It is evident from the above comments that knowledge sharing is perceived as an arduous
and time-consuming process, as a chore that inevitably ends up at the bottom of the to-do
list. There is, however, a sort of hidden desire and unrecognised need among the
practitioners for increased interaction, communication, and knowledge sharing both
through the wiki and more widely in the WGCoP. The survey and the interviews strongly
indicated that the practitioners consider the wiki to be too static, not dynamic or
‘alive’. .The survey data showed that the CoP members would like to see more regular
updates in the wiki, receive information that colleagues are using the material and
knowledge that is shared, receive information on upcoming events, and for there to be an
'alerts' or notification system to inform members when new pages are added that are of
interest. Similarly, the interviews showed that most of the respondents value interaction
and communication rather than a static information repository. One non-UNDP member
explains; "if the wiki was more active, rather than being just a stationary, voluntary
27
platform that would compel me to participate". Another UNDP member puts it even more
vividly;
When people are interacting virtually there is no direct feedback at every single
moment, you might feel that there is probably no one using the information you
have uploaded. You feel isolated, you are adding information but [there is] no
visual way to see if anyone is using what you have uploaded.
It is not, however, the technology that poses these barriers, but human agency itself. As
mentioned above, Walsham (2005:26) argues that “new technologies offer new
opportunities, but whether they are taken up and used to change processes of knowing
depends on human agency”. The perception of the wiki as a knowledge or information
repository hinders the WGCoP from conceiving the wiki as anything more than that. It’s
potential for enabling knowledge socially constituted through practice is thereby lost.
5.2 Knowledge not Considered a Public Good
5.2.1 Knowledge as Public Good
The economics literature has long argued that knowledge should be seen as a public good
(eg. Stiglitz, 1999). Although the CoP literature already critique the notion that
knowledge exists in the minds of individuals, it is useful to take this critique one step
further to argue that knowledge at the UNDP and in the WGCoP must be seen as a public
good, not a private one, in order for valuable knowledge sharing to take place. The fact
that knowledge is seen as private and a possession of individual members poses
constraints to knowledge sharing in the wiki and more generally in the WGCoP. A public
good has two critical properties. It is non-rivalrous consumption, meaning the
consumption of one individual does not detract from that of another. And, second, it has
non-excludability, that is, it is difficult if not impossible to exclude an individual from
28
enjoying the good (Stiglitz, 1999). McLure-Wasko & Faraj (2000) argue that for active
knowledge sharing to take place in a CoP, knowledge has to be perceived as a public
good. They explain; “when knowledge is seen as public good, people are motivated to
share as a moral obligation rather than expectation of return” (2000, 156). Members of a
CoP that perceives knowledge as a public good will act pro-socially and share what they
know because they think it’s the right thing to do; it is their moral duty (McLure-Wasko
& Faraj, 2000). Since knowledge is socially situated in the community and in practice it
becomes vital that all members view knowledge as belonging to the whole community, in
order for everyone to participate and share. It is not, however, possible for the
organisation to introduce incentives to encourage this mind shift. “Introducing tangible
rewards for the provision of a public good encourages self-interested behaviour, reduces
intrinsic motivation, and destroys the public good” (Deci, 1971, 1972 in McLure-Wasko
& Faraj, 2000)
5.2.2 Conception of Knowledge as Private Good in the WGCoP
This last argument by Deci in McLure-Wasko & Faraj (2000), stated above, explains why
one UNDP member, quoted above, notes that despite the requirement to contribute at
least twice per month to the WGCoP, she procrastinates and postpones the task. The
survey findings, maybe somewhat surprisingly, showed that if knowledge sharing was
part of the practitioners’ job specifications, this would not compel them to share more.
Similarly, the survey showed that providing rewards for using the wiki would not make
the WGCoP members use the wiki more. The interviews also showed that in the instances
that the perception of knowledge in the WGCoP approached something like a public
good, the practitioners felt more inclined to share as they perceived a greater purpose.
One UNDP member who was quoted earlier remarked that contributing to the wiki gave
the community a sense of ‘unitedness’. Mentioned earlier was also the feeling, amongst
the WGCoP members, that contributing to the CoP and the wiki promoted salience for
the issue of water governance, both in the region and in the broader political arena. These
29
views can be regarded as approaching the perspective of knowledge as a public good, or
at least the property of the community as a whole.
5.2.3 Possible Future Mind Shift
One non-UNDP member explains the importance the practitioners in the WGCoP attach
to their job; “there are a lot of people that are dedicated beyond job or money, a lot of
people really want to move forward on issues". Another UNDP member remarks that “we
are shaping our future water related activities at the moment” when describing the greater
purpose of the work the WGCoP is doing. These last two comments indicate a strong
desire, as well as an opening, for knowledge to be seen as a public good in the
community. The WGCoP clearly recognises the importance of their work for the issue of
water governance generally. One could therefore expect that the necessary mind shift in
this particular community may come at a lesser cost than it would in a CoP where the
majority of members belong to the private sector.
One non-UNDP member from the private sector indicates this last point when explaining
why she does not share;
Time, and honestly as a consultant -money. Even if I had more free time, I'm not
sure I would do it because I am paid per deliverable. If it’s not in the TOR [Terms
of Reference], it is hard to invest the time. I do what I can and when I'm able to,
but it's not a priority.
This is an indication that this particular consultant hoards knowledge. She is very
reluctant to give away what she knows out of fear of losing business. When asked about
how well the content of the WaterWiki reflects the work of the CoP, she replies; “it does
very well, maybe a little too well”. This mindset of knowledge as power and the key to
30
money and success reflects the conventional view of knowledge as possession and will
not benefit the community or the advancement of issues they work on more generally.
One possible approach towards encouraging knowledge sharing by individuals who have
a vested interest in hoarding what they know, could be to focus more on knowledge
sharing in practice, that is through communication, participation, and collaboration. It
may not be directly obvious to a consultant, or any other ‘knowledge hoarder’, that
valuable knowledge is in fact being shared, if it is done in socially together with other
practitioners, rather than as an individual task of codifying and posting expertise in the
wiki.
5.3 A Perspective of Power
The last point of reflection on the findings of the study relates to the recent call in the
CoP literature to include issues of power in the analysis of communities of practice. My
study clearly indicates the value and importance of analysing the CoP from a power
perspective. Structures of power relations within and beyond the community are
hindering full participation and knowledge sharing between the members in the wiki.
Rolland notes that the wiki technology is particularly suitable for communities of practice
because both wikis and CoPs break down the traditional hierarchical barriers of the
bureaucratic organisation. The wiki software should, in theory, allow everyone in the
CoP to contribute without discrimination but the actual experience show barriers to fully
realised participation.
5.3.1 Language
First, and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of language. The wiki covers a
region that is mainly Russian speaking as the area stretches from Central Europe to
Central Asia. The wiki is however published by the UNDP only in English. Many of the
31
interview respondents commented, with some frustration, on the barriers this posed to the
expansion of the wiki. One UNDP member is Central Asia notes;
When it comes to work with our external partners, we restrict ourselves by using
the English language. There are so many people in the region, especially in the
former CIS countries [who deal] with water issues but still there are a lot of them
who can not get involved and participate because of language issues. We should
reduce these language barriers.
Another non-UNDP member expresses a similar frustration
I have contributed materials on our basin environment program and have
circulated the website to our partners in the region, [but] most of them are not
able to make use of it that much because the website is in English.
The facilitator is however aware of the issue. He notes; “It's a big challenge whether we
should translate to Russian. Many of the practitioners in Central Asia work in Russian, so
English is the wrong language".
The issue must therefore be seen as one of wider relations of power and is not
immediately remedied by the facilitator or the regional office, but is one that maybe
UNDP (or the UN) as a whole must address. In the end it is also a question of money.
The comments made by the practitioners, however, indicate the importance of including a
perspective of power. The content and knowledge that get posted and shared in the wiki
is very much limited by the inability to involve practitioners outside UNDP in the process
since they often are not proficient in English. On the other hand, translating the wiki into
Russian may mean a certain loss of power and control on the part of the regional office
and UNDP.
32
5.3.2 Hierarchy
A second power-related barrier to sharing and participation in the wiki is the hierarchy
and the structure of power in and beyond the WGCoP. Veenswijk and Chisalita (2007)
note that CoPs counteract traditional hierarchical structures and Rolland (2006) argues
that new technologies, such as wikis, are particularly useful for CoPs as these too counter
conventional hierarchies. One UNDP member, however, expresses the hesitation he feels
in the face of contacting fellow CoP members;
The whole hierarchy of the organisation is also a stopping factor [to knowledge
sharing. Like, am I allowed to contact an adviser somewhere, or not? It is not that
straightforward, it should be and it's presented as it is, but it isn't really
Another WGCoP member (non-UNDP staff but government official) further up in the
power hierarchy expresses a fear of a different kind, that she might be misunderstood.
She notes;
The right to water is more a personal interest [of mine], if I would post it there [in
the WaterWiki] it may be that a lot of people would say 'the German government
is trying to push this agenda'. There is always a danger of mixing up what people
personally think and what is the government's way. This can be very tricky. It is
probably the same for people working in other organisations, UNDP or NGO's. If
you do not know who the person is you can not look behind the curtain to know
why someone made a particular statement.[There is a] risk of misunderstanding
between personal and professional interests.
Although this last comment may be interpreted in many different ways, not just from a
perspective of power, it provides an interesting insight into the fear and resistance that
CoP members feel of being misunderstood or misrepresented. The link with the quote
above is that in the electronic world, power structures are supposedly invisible, but both
these quotes indicate that this is clearly not the case here. The UNDP member (first
33
quoted) expresses fear of contacting members higher up the hierarchy, while the
government official at the top of the hierarchy expresses a worry that she may be
misunderstood or misrepresented, possibly due to the fear of losing face as a result of her
prestigious and important position. Despite wikis and communities of practice promising
to break with the power structures of traditional hierarchies, they fall short of this
promise. Linking this to the argument made by Roberts (2006), mentioned in the
literature review, it may be the case that, despite the WGCoP existing in a network type
structure, a hierarchical perception may prevail as these members work in organisations
traditionally characterised by bureaucracy and hierarchy.
There is however a small degree of recognition of a more inclusive and hierarchy-
reducing influence. One non-UNDP member notes;
What is really nice is that stakeholders are more and more being included, which
was formally not that visible, stakeholders did not have a platform. This has
changed a lot. There is no distinction between donors, government, NGOs etc
made in meetings. People are more interested in having a closer community than
before.
This is also supported by the significant and rapid expansion of members in the WGCoP
over the past couple of years to include practitioners from an array of different
organisations and backgrounds.
34
6. Conclusion
6.1 Summary of Key Findings
This study has analysed the possible contribution made by a particular type of
technology, a wiki tool, to the development of a community of practice, the Water
Governance Community of Practice, established by UNDP Regional Centre for Europe
and the CIS during spring 2005. The study has shown that the wiki has made a certain
contribution to the development of the WGCoP. This claim is supported by the evidence
that the wiki has generated a sense of togetherness in the community; the wiki has
functioned as a tool for knowledge sharing in the WGCoP; and the technology itself has
proven easy to use and it has worked well as a vetted resource for the CoP. Despite this,
the wiki has not lived up to its potential of enabling communication, collaboration, and
knowledge sharing in practice within the WGCoP. The wiki is mostly used by the
facilitator and members’ use is limited to requests to post information and reminders to
use the wiki. The study has subsequently analysed possible explanations for this partial
contribution. The fact that knowledge is regarded by the facilitator and the rest of the
WGCoP members as an object present in members’ heads, to be extracted, codified and
stored in the wiki, has limited the ability of the wiki to function as anything more than an
information repository. In addition, the view that knowledge belongs to individual
members, rather than to the public or the CoP, that is, that knowledge is perceived as a
private, as opposed to a public good, means that the CoP members are reluctant to share
what they know. Some hoard knowledge and others are reluctant to share as they do not
see the benefit to themselves. There is however indication that the WGCoP members are
interested and willing to move to a conception of knowledge as situated in practice and to
perceiving knowledge as a public good. This would enable communication,
collaboration, an active knowledge sharing in the wiki, and thereby allow the wiki to
fulfil its potential function. Walsham (2005:26) is correct in his statement that the ability
of technology to fulfil its potential depends on human agency.
35
The study has also shown the value of including a perspective of power in the analysis of
CoPs. Language and issues of hierarchy within the WGCoP asserted significant
constraints to knowledge sharing between the members, with language hindering the
expansion of the CoP to external (non-UNDP) members in Central Asia and members at
various levels in the hierarchy experiencing apprehension to share with other members
due to their respective positions in the power hierarchy.
6.2 Contributions of the Study
The study has shown the importance of analysing the particular type of technology
utilised by CoPs, its features, potential purposes and possibilities. No technology is a
‘black box’ (Rosenberg, 1982) that can be taken for granted and left unanalysed. In this
particular case the WGCoP utilised a wiki for knowledge sharing in the community. This
type of new collaborative technology differs from other knowledge management systems
as it has a dynamic and process-like nature, and therefore has the potential to enable
communication, knowledge sharing, and participation by all members in the community.
But as Rolland (2006) and Currie and Kerrin (2004) claims, there is no ‘technological
fix’ to knowledge sharing, whether the technology fulfils its potential depends on human
agency, and in this case the ‘wrong’ mindset in the WGCoP limits the ability of the wiki
software to provide full benefits (Walsham, 2005:26).
A second contribution is the support the study gives to the theory on communities of
practice and the practice-based view of knowledge. Despite the limitations to knowledge
sharing in the WGCoP, this theory has proved useful for analysing this CoP and has
given insights into why active knowledge sharing is constrained in the community. In
addition, the economics argument of knowledge as a public good has proved particularly
valuable for analysing the WGCoP members’ conception of knowledge. The study also
supports the recent call in the literature to include a perspective of power in the analysis
of CoPs.
36
The last contribution of the study is the argument made that the theory of community of
practice is suitable for analysing knowledge sharing in a distributed CoP, which works
under the constraints of time and space separation. New technologies such as wikis and
blogs have the potential to allow interaction, communication, and collaboration, that is,
knowledge sharing in practice within a CoP. Few studies within the social sciences have
so far made this specific link and many studies fail to factor in the contribution of specific
technologies and how to practically account for knowledge sharing in practice when the
CoP members are distributed.
6.3 Implications for Practice
6.3.1 Managers
Conventional views of knowledge are still prevailing in organisations today. Managers
and communities can benefit from a reconsideration of their perception of knowledge, as
well as from attempting to move towards a view of knowledge as situated in practice and
as a public good. Although this shift is difficult, it will provide substantial benefits to
CoPs and organisations, as communities will be able to work with new types of
technologies and benefit from the value these can provide. In the case of the WGCoP, the
members have a clear interest in viewing knowledge as situated in practice and as a
public good.
6.3.2 IT Managers/Designers
There is a need for the people involved in choosing IT tools for the CoP or the
organisation to recognise that it is not just a matter of implementing a tool, for change to
occur. IT managers or designers within organisations need to appreciate the mind shift
and social change that must take place for a CoP to benefit from the opportunities new
technologies can generate.
37
6.3.3 Academics
Academics in the social sciences who are writing on communities of practice and the use
of technology need to be able to differentiate between types of technologies and
appreciate that not all technologies have the same potential or fulfil the same function.
There is a vast difference between technologies that function as information repositories,
which often end up as digital junkyards, and new technologies that facilitate interaction
and collaboration online.
6.4 Implications for Theory
6.4.1 CoP Theory
The implications for CoP theory were mostly addressed in section 6.2. The most
important implications are that the study has provided support for the inclusion of a
perspective of power in the study of CoPs and technology. A second implication is that
the study has provided an opening for studying knowledge situated in practice in a
distributed CoP while accounting for the use of technology. The implication of this is that
the infant theory on online or virtual CoPs may be rendered redundant, as there would no
longer be a need for separating the analysis of CoPs that communicate and share
knowledge primarily online, from those who meet face to face, as both can share
knowledge in practice. This study argued, but could not prove however, that knowledge
sharing in the WGCoP has the potential to take place socially in practice through the
technology.
6. 5 Limitations
Possible limitations of the study are the number, and the length, of the interviews. Only
ten interviews were undertaken and the length was relatively short, around 30 minutes. A
38
possible reason for this may be the language constraints of the respondents and my
inability to communicate in Russian. Another possible limitation is that the WGCoP and
the WaterWiki are both relatively young and may not yet have come into maturity and
full use.
39
References
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.
Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25-56).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barab, S. MaKinster, J. Scheckler, R (2004) Designing System Dualities: Characterizing
An Online Professional Development Community. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J.
(Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press
Bourhis A, Dubé L and Jacob R (2005) The Success of Virtual Communities of Practice:
The Leadership Factor The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 3
Issue 1, pp 23-34
Breu, K. Hemingway, C (2002) Collaborative Processes and Knowledge Creation in
Communities of Practice Collaborative Processes and Knowledge Creation Vol 11, No 3
Brown, JS. Collins, A. Duguid, P (1989) Situated Cognition and Culture of Learning
Educational Researcher Vol. 18 pp. 32-42
Brown, JS. Duguid, P (1991) Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice:
Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation Organization Science,
Vol. 2, No. 1,
Brown, JS. Duguid, P (1999) Organizing Knowledge Reflections Vol. 1 No.2
Brown, JS. Duguid, P (2001) Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice
Perspective Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 2.
40
Chumer, M., Hull, R. and Prichard, C. (2000) ‘Introduction: Situating Discussions about
“Knowledge”’, in C. Pritchard, R. Hull, M. Chumer and H. Willmott (eds) Managing
Knowledge: Critical Investigations of Work and Learning. Basingstoke: MacMillan
Cochran-Smith, M. S.L. Lytle (1999) Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher
Learning in Communities Review of Research in Education, Vol. 24, pp. 249-305
Contu, H. Willmott, A (2000) Comment on Wenger and Yanow. Knowing in Practice: A
‘Delicate Flower’ in the Organizational Learning Field Organization Vol. 7 No. 2
Contu, H. Willmott, A (2003) Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power
Relations in Learning Theory Organization Science Vol. 14 No. 3
Cook, S. Brown, JS (1999) Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between
Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing Organization science Vol. 10
No. 4
Currie, G. Kerrin, M (2004) The Limits of a Technological Fix to Knowledge
Management Management Learning Vol 35, No 1 pp. 1350-5076
Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2006) Towards a typology of virtual communities of
practice, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management Vol 1
Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2004) “Structuring Spontaneity”: the Impact of
Management Practices on the Success of Intentionally Formed Virtual Communities of
Practice, [online], Cahiers du GReSI no 04-20,
http://gresi.hec.ca/SHAPS/cp/gescah/formajout/ajout/test/uploaded/cahier0420.pdf
Erickson,T. Kellogg,W.A. (2001) Knowledge communities:Online environments for
supporting knowledge management and its social context. Beyond Knowledge
41
Management:Sharing Expertise.(M.Ackerman,V. Pipek,and V.Wulf;Eds).MIT
Press,Cambridge,MA
Fox, S (2000) Communities of practice, Foucault and Actor-Network theory. Journal of
Management Studies 37 (6) pp 853-867
Fuchs-Kittowski, F. Köhler, A (2005a) Wiki Communities in the Context of Work
Processes WikiSym '05, October 16-18, San Diego, CA, U.S.A. Copyright 2005 ACM 1-
59593-111-2/05/0010
Fuchs-Kittowski, F. Köhler, A (2005b) Integration of Communities into Process-Oriented
Structures Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 410-425
Grant, R.M. (1996) Prospering in Dynamically Competitive Environments:
Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organization Science Vol. 7, pp.
375-387
Hampel, T., Roth, A., Kahnwald, N., & Köhler, T. (2005). An Adaptable Platform for
Evolving Communities of Practice. In: Tagungsband des Workshops: "Design for Large-
Scale Digital Communities", 2nd International Conference on Communities and
Technologies , Milano, Italien, 06/2005
Handley, K et al (2006) Within and Beyond Communities of Practice: Making Sense of
Learning Through Participation, Identity and Practice Journal of Management Studies
43:3 May 2006
Hayes, N. Walsham, H (2001) Participation in groupware-mediated communities of
practice: a socio-political analysis of knowledge working Information and Organization
Vol. 11 pp. 263–288
42
Kim, A. J. 2000. Community building on the Web: Secret strategies for successful online
communities. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
Kimble, C., Hildreth, P. and Wright, P. (2001), “Communities of practice: going virtual”,
Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation, Idea Group Publishing,
Hershey, PA/London, pp. 220-34.
Kondratova, I. I, Goldfarb (2004) Virtual Communities of Practice: Design for
Collaboration and Knowledge Creation. In the Proceedings of the European Conference
on Products and Processes Modelling (ECPPM 2004). Istanbul, Turkey. September 8-11,
2004. NRC 47157.
Lave, J. Wenger, E (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation,
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press
Liebeskind, JP (1996) Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm Strategic
Management Journal Vol. 17, pp. 93-107
Marshall, N. Rollinson, J (2004) Maybe Bacon Had a Point: The Politics of Interpretation
in Collective Sensemaking British Journal of Management Vol 15. S71-S86
McLure-Wasko M, Faraj S. (2000) It is what one does: why people participate and help
others in electronic communities of practice. Strategic Information Systems Journal Vol
9.
Orlikowski, W (2002) Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in
Distributed Organizing Organization Science Vol. 13 No. 3
Pan, SL. Leidner, DE (2003) Bridging communities of practice with information
technology in pursuit of global knowledge sharing Journal of Strategic Information
Systems Vol. 12 pp. 71-88
43
Preece, J. 2000. Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability.
New York: John Wiley & Sons
Roberts, J (2000) From Know-how to Show-how? Questioning the Role of Information
and Communication Technologies in Knowledge Transfer Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, Vol. 12, No 4, 2000
Roberts, J (2006) Limits to Communities of Practice Journal of Management Studies Vol.
43 No. 3
Rolland, K (2006) Achieving knowledge across borders: facilitating practices of
triangulation, obliterating ‘‘digital junkyards’’ Ethics and Information Technology Vol. 8,
pp. 143-154
Rosenberg, N (1982) Inside the Black Box of Technology and Economics Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Schwen, T. Hara, N (2003) Community of Practice: A Metaphor for Online Design? The
Information Society Vol. 19, pp. 257-270
Simon, HA (1991) Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning Organization
Science Vol. 2 pp. 125-134
Stiglitz, JE (1999) Knowledge as Global Public Good Global Public Goods Vol. 19, pp.
308-326
Tredinnick, L (2006) Web 2.0 and Business: A pointer to the intranets of the future
Business Information Review Vol 23 No 4 pp. 228-234
44
Veenswijk, M. Chisalita, CM (2007) The Importance of Power and Ideology in
Communities of Practice: The Case of a De-marginalized User Interface Design Team in
a Failing Multi-national Design Company Information Technology & People, Vol. 20, No
1
Walsham, G (2001) Knowledge Management: The benefits and Limitations of Computer
Systems European Management Journal Vol. 19, No 6 pp. 599-608
Walsham, G. Barrett, M (2005) ICTs and Changing Processes of Knowing in a Global
Development Agency WP02/2005 Judge Institute of Management, University of
Cambridge
Ward, R (2006) Blogs and Wikis: A Personal Journey Business Information Review, Vol.
23, No. 4, pp. 235-240
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E (2000) Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems Organization
Vol. 7 No 2
Wenger, E. Snyder, W (2000) Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier
Harvard Business Review Jan-Feb
Wenger, E (2001) Supporting Communities of Practice: A Survey of Community-
Oriented Technologies Version 1.3, March 2001
Wenger, E, McDermott, R, Snyder, W (2002) Seven Principles for Cultivating
Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge Boston: Harvard Business
School Press
45
Wenger, E. White, N. Smith, JD. Rowe, K (2005) Technology for Communities CEFRIO
Book Chapter v 5.2 Jan 18, 2005
Yanow, D. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries British
Journal of Management, Vol. 15, S9–25.
46
Appendix
4.2 Knowledge Sharing
Reasons for sharing
I Stay Connected
UNDP COP Members
“membership itself is quite important to keep track of what is going on in the community”
“It’s [the WaterWiki & the WGCoP] very important because it helps give a regional, and even global, impact to projects that would otherwise be limited to Cyprus. So it's a way out for us on a small island like Cyprus to show the world, to showcase what we're doing and also obviously to learn from other people's examples. So it’s very important for us to be linked in.
Non-UNDP COP Members
"having a group of people who to bounce ideas off of and talk to people who work in similar areas is very very helpful"
“[It is] interesting … to look into who has been doing what on the wiki lately, what they have been reading and so on, and then get a sense of where their heads are and what they are thinking.”
"It’s helpful for me to know who else is doing work that is related to [water], because really, we know each other, but it’s a helpful forum to reach out to those people. [It is] interesting also to look into who has been doing what on the wiki lately, what they have been reading and so on, and then get a sense of where their heads are and what they are thinking"
"I find it very important to have this contact and to have a regular stage where it's possible to post information on the web and reach a lot of people” The COP Facilitator
4.2 Knowledge SharingReasons for sharingII Share Knowledge & Experience
UNDP COP Members“My own contribution is mostly sharing opinions and experts and experiences we have in Tajikistan with others”
“Benefits of the wiki is that it enables you to “share experiences and find answers”
“I joined this community last year and it was mostly because we had the biggest project in Central Asia and I thought it would be important for us to share the experience. I think it’s useful in terms of hearing from other countries and getting views on other projects, especially in Central Asia and it is also important for the formaer CIS countries.”
"it is very important to be involved in the cop, to learn more on water issues and share our experiences". "Once it comes to the experience of the region it is important to have the lessons learned and the management modalities for water basin management. This is something we are trying to learn from the CoP. When ever we need a water expert, we try to organise our
47
search through the CoP members"
“[WaterWiki is good for] knowing who is doing what [and] learn about past experiences"
Non-UNDP COP Members
The COP Facilitator
4.2 Knowledge Sharing
Reasons for not sharing
I Time
UNDP COP Members
"I wish we had the capacity to involve ourselves more fully. Time is one of our most valuable resources so time constraints are a real issue"
“Unfortunately I should be contributing more, I wish I could. Because of the large project load that we have we are unable to contribute to each CoP, to each network that we are part of but, we do on an ad hoc basis when there's something relevant to what we are doing, for example when the Waterfair took place we took part in that but unfortunately our support to this community is very ad hoc, its on a random basis. I wish we had the capacity to involve ourselves more fully. Time is one of our most valuable resources so time constraints are a real issue. I do get a lot of e-mails from various communities of practice and i try to process whatever is relevant to us but sometimes time is not there, it's not available.”
“Time of course, we have a lot of current activities not so much time to share.”
“[There is] not enough time [to share]”.
"[The] workload too high, [there is not] enough time. No extra time to contribute to the network. Although the issues are interesting and challenging, there is mostly no time to write, summarise and post. Although there is a requirement now that we should contribute at least two times to the network, that's the mechanism the management uses to incentivise us." Non-UNDP COP Members
“A lot of the time you don't have the time to put aside for looking around on the wiki. I don't have time to do research about issues. I would like to have time"
"I think it [the WaterWiki has [contributed to the development of the WGCoP] but not as much as it could. It would be helpful if there was some way to for people to have time to do it""Time. And honestly as a consultant -money. Even if I had more free time I'm not sure i would do it because i am paid per deliverable. If it’s not in the TOR [Terms of Reference] it is hard to invest the time. I do what I can and when I'm able to, but it's not a priority"The COP Facilitator
4.2 Knowledge SharingReasons for not
UNDP COP Members"I would be happy to find some of my time if I had something to share to contribute to the
48
sharing
II Lack of Projects
WaterWiki but my involvement is limited due to no water projects"
"its contribution is not enormous but it’s not because of the merits of the WaterWiki itself, it’s the fact that most of our projects are not directly water related. It's an occasional tool for me but it’s not a judgment of the merits of the WaterWiki itself"“It [the WaterWiki] is important but i don't use it that much as i would if we had more projects related to water in Tajikistan.” Non-UNDP COP Members The COP Facilitator
4.2 Knowledge Sharing
Reasons for not sharing
III Too many CoPs
UNDP COP Members"In UNDP we have so many networks like this [WGCoP] and sometimes you get tired and get lost in them. We have enough knowledge tools and networks. The amount of information is so big that sometimes you don't have time to follow up on everything"
"There are several networks, so because we are busy we can't fully commit to each network"
"UNDP has too much of knowledge management. I'm signed up to so many km networks so it gets a complicated, you can't get on with your regular work"."[there are] too many networks and too many similar things going on, we are constantly bombarded with e-mails asking questions"Non-UNDP COP Members
The COP Facilitator
4.3 Wiki contribution to CoP
I Togetherness
UNDP COP Members“success [of the CoP and the WaterWiki] is because most people are from the region, share the same problems, issues are very similar”
"A lot of people didn't like editing after the KM fair, but many people did complete the task because they thought they were doing something for a positive cause. It gave a sense of ‘unitedness’" Non-UNDP COP Members"I think it [WaterWiki] is very important. We are all coming together closer in our work" The COP Facilitator“I think so yes [the WaterWiki has contributed to the development of the WGCoP], even if it's just psychological. If you put it to the extreme, it's only a common cool gadget that everybody knows about. It did [contribute] because it was bringing people together mentally"
4.3 Wiki contribution to CoPII Knowledge Tool & Salience of water governance issue
UNDP COP Members“It's a more focused way than to have to go through the long list of global e-mail and try to remember a message that may have been relevant”
“Whenever you need information ... you shouldn't write to your colleague directly, you should go to the country page [in WaterWiki] to see what they have developed or search for the relevant documents and then for clarification contact your colleague. In this sense the WaterWiki provides a buffer zone to check whether there is any water related activity or not and then go for details if information is not enough"
49
"If you can go on to an online database and access immediately the information that you need, and if you get case studies and examples from the entire region, it really helps to put your own efforts into context"
"You can find other country's project experiences and get the flow of their projects and that can be very useful. For that it's a great tool"
"[WaterWiki is good for finding] methodologies, techniques and approaches that other countries use in the projects. I am interested in ideas so you don't have to re-invent the wheel. This is what the WaterWiki is good for.""If the wiki didn't happen I wouldn't think of the issue of water as a subject"Non-UNDP COP Member
"it is a site that provides resources and information pertaining to what I am looking for. It is well laid out"
“I like that it's a handy resource. It's an online handy resource, where it's an all-in-one feature, it has the project by GEF [Global Environmental Fund] that I am interested in, to some detail actually. I can get all documents from one site without having to go through the whole google experience or through the GEF website looking for them. The WaterWiki is actually quite well structured in that regard, I like the format”. The COP Facilitator"A … great contribution to my work is that it [the WaterWiki] has been promoting water governance and promoting what we do in the region on water governance. It has profiled RBEC's [UNDP Regional Bureau of Europe and CIS] water governance sub-practice both internally and externally. It's an outreach, indirect outreach and PR for us"
4.3 Wiki contribution to CoP
III The Technology
UNDP COP Members"[The CoP has been successful] due to its flexibility, especially the WaterWiki. It's the fact that anyone can contribute and that there is a constant peer review process that people keep on adding to the knowledge base that has been created, that there is a focal point for that knowledge to be exposed. So I think basically that's what gives it [the CoP] strength, its flexibility"“[It is] a constant peer review process [where] people keep on adding to the knowledge base that has been created” Non-UNDP COP Members"It serves as a vetted resource. The information that is there has been vetted. This is a benefit above using google. [It's] good resource for finding info on people, addresses, numbers, project documents ... very useful way to access and share information, it cuts down on search time."The COP Facilitator
4.4 Limited Contribution
I Limited Sharing
UNDP COP Members
"In general it is very useful for information about water. My involvement is limited to following the request to place information [in the WaterWiki]"
"I only [use it] when I'm specifically preparing a brief note, whenever I need some information or similar experience""I don't upload enough information. I put it on my to-do list but it is always somewhere at the
50
end. It's unfortunate because we have a lot to share. But what helps is that when people approach me, I send them the documents by e-mail. It's a matter of being committed, I have to have a personal commitment, put it in the calendar and update my WaterWiki page on a regular basis. It's a matter of personality, some people enjoy it a lot. It depends on the person"Non-UNDP COP Members“I stay in touch with a couple of people that would also be members of it [the WGCoP], who are the project managers who have been in the scheme for a long time and particularly those who work in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus that have the same type of issues that I would have and those are the ones who I would share more information with and this is irrespective of whether this particular service [The WGCoP] existed or not.”The COP Facilitator"People were enthusiastic about things like the wiki or new initiatives but then nothing followed up. If you really want them to share and take part, nothing happened. They commit a lot but don't really follow up. It's just the way it is with knowledge management. You get enthusiastic about things, you see the importance it would have in theory, but it is possible still to do your job without it and you can get around it and it is still in people's head that sharing knowledge is a waste of time, people don't see the use of it yet. It's a mind shift that is still needed. There is a lot of talk about it but still a question of how to make it happen. They consume knowledge, but to make them contribute and share we were never able to"
"From the beginning I had the idea that whenever someone had a great idea or an experience to share there should be away to share and codify this to make it accessible to others. This was the ideal, that it is more supply driven from knowledge bearers to reach out to those who might use it. But that changed a bit, the ideal world would be a balance between supply and needs basis, balance between sharing and seeking. But now the reality is that it is more a demand driven case, and that is also the only real, active, knowledge sharing that is working in UNDP, which is you send out an e-mail to the practice or the global level asking for knowledge on something specific, reference or knowledge on topic or project type and that people respond. But still I know that there are other CoPs in the region that share much more spontaneously what they know. This is not happening in the water CoP".
"One thing that changed during the whole thing [the development of the WaterWiki] is that I am not so convinced anymore that in this type of community of practice, where you are measured not by knowledge sharing but by producing projects and that you are delivering money in a sense, I don't think you can make them share a lot of experience directly in a wiki. It's an awakening in a sense. They don't see an immediate use for themselves, and that's the only driving factor. To really make people share much more you would have to do something in people's terms of reference, not only put there to share their knowledge but it has to be something much more, they have to be knowledge workers in a sense. It's a matter of culture and the culture of the organisation. In UNDP, it's not the case like in the big KM consultancies where they are required to share their knowledge, it's not the way we work. It starts with the notion that we are not expected to create new knowledge, we are just expected to apply knowledge and therefore, why would you have anything to share afterwards?”
4.4 Limited Contribution
II WaterWiki mainly
UNDP COP Members “At the moment not so much [contribution to my work]. I follow it and check it regularly” Non-UNDP COP Members
"Not much [contribution made by WaterWiki to my work]. I mean I browse… but as I say my
51
benefit the facilitator
issues are political"
“Honestly speaking, I am just really using it when I get some information that says there is new information on the WaterWiki” The COP Facilitator"For me it's a huge and great resource, it replaces my C drive in a sense. All relevant information for me that is work related and substantive is up there, well except certain contracts, but everything else. It's a great resource"
5.1 Traditional Views of Knowledge
Conventional view in WGCoP
UNDP COP Members"it would be good to find some example of [how] people improved their work, received money, found partners etc by sharing knowledge and information"Non-UNDP COP Members"I'm a fan of having our own little 'Britannica', which is how i see the WaterWiki. It’s a lot more than a telephone director; it’s got a lot of good information" The COP Facilitator
"The question is how you measure success. If you say that success is that people have knowledge about what they and others are doing, others that have knowledge about similar things, then, yes, I think so, it [the CoP] has been successful, it has brought awareness to what everyone is doing in the region. If you say that success is really actively shared and codified knowledge, projects and activities, then I think it's a bit less successful still. There is a lot out there that hasn't been captured. If you say success is eventually the result, new projects bigger portfolio and activities in the water sector then I would also say yes I think so. The fact that there is a facilitator in the region has catalysed some more work"
“We were struggling [in the beginning] with the whole concept of knowledge sharing and codification. The wiki was the solution to it"
5.1 Traditional Views of Knowledge
WGCoP prefers collaboration & interaction
UNDP COP Members"If the wiki was more active, rather than being just a stationary, voluntary platform, that would compel me to participate."
"When people are interacting virtually there is no direct feedback at every single moment, you might feel that there is probably no one using the information you have uploaded. You feel isolated, you are adding information but [there is] no visual way to see if anyone is using what you have uploaded. [If there was a system for an] update every month, then that would give an incentive to see that people are interested and we would put more information up, update it all the time. This could be a good step forward" Non-UNDP COP Members The COP Facilitator"It's hard that you never know if anyone is reading what you share, [there is] not enough feedback"
5.2 Knowledge not a public goodPossible future mind shift to knowledge as public good
UNDP COP Members "A lot of people didn't like editing after the KM fair, but many people did complete the task because they thought they were doing something for a positive cause. It gave a sense of ‘unitedness’.”"It is the only specific network that focuses on water and as water becomes a major issue I
52
think this is important to keep" Non-UNDP COP Members"a lot of people that are dedicated beyond job or money, a lot of people really want to move forward on issues""Anything that this type of exercise on water governance can produce at the beginning of the century may help to dampen the rhetoric and the political sword waving that will come later when fresh water access becomes more critical than energy" The COP Facilitator
5.3 Power
Language
UNDP COP Members"When it comes to work with our external partners we restrict ourselves by using the English language. There are so many people in the region, especially in the former CIS countries [who deal] with water issues but still there are a lot of them who can not get involved and participate because of language issues ... we should reduce these language barriers” Non-UNDP COP Members“I have contributed materials on our basin environment program and have circulated the website to our partners in the region, most of them are not able to make use of it that much because the website is in English. There is a huge disconnect in this respect.”The COP Facilitator“It's [a] big challenge whether we should translate to Russian, many of the practitioners in Central Asia work in Russian, so English is the wrong language”
5.3 Power
Hierarchy
UNDP COP Members“The whole hierarchy of the organisation is also a stopping factor [to knowledge sharing. Like, am I allowed to contact an adviser somewhere, or not? It is not that straightforward, it should be and it's presented as it is, but it isn't really”Non-UNDP COP Members“The right to water is more a personal interest [of mine], if I would post it there [in the WaterWiki] it may be that a lot of people would say 'the German government is trying to push this agenda'. There is always a danger of mixing up what people personally think and what is the government's way. This can be very tricky. It is probably the same for people working in other organisations, UNDP or NGO's. If you do not know who the person is you can not look behind the curtain to know why someone made a particular statement.[There is a] risk of misunderstanding between personal and professional interests.”The COP Facilitator”
53
