Facilitating a knowledge network: the role of communities of practice

91 Pages·2013·1.09 MB·English

by  Pin Pin Schunk

FACILITATING A KNOWLEDGE NETWORK: THE ROLE OF COMMUNITIES OF
PRACTICE

A Thesis by
Pin Pin Schunk
Bachelor of Science, Wichita State University, 1994

Submitted to the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
and the faculty of the Graduate School of
Wichita State University
In partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

July 2013
© Copyright 2013 by Pin Pin Schunk
All Rights Reserved
FACILITATING A KNOWLEDGE NETWORK: THE ROLE OF COMMUNITIES OF
PRACTICE

The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content,
and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Science, with a major in Industrial Engineering.

Don Malzahn, Committee Chair

Dr. Jim Wolff, Committee Member

Dr. Lawrence Whitman, Committee Member

iii
ABSTRACT
Today, sophisticated consumers drive an organization’s market share. They demand
timely innovation and challenge an organization’s capacity to manage its competencies.
Communities of Practice (CoPs) harvest and disperse the competencies and innovative synergy
that reside in an organization’s knowledge reservoirs. The theory of CoPs as a knowledge
network requires quantitative measurement to enhance its effectiveness and sustainability.
This research seeks to validate this knowledge generating mechanism by first, examining
a CoP through a functional decomposition process model (IDEF0-Integration Definition for
Function Modeling). Second, by developing a “Cultivate a CoP” assessment scale and finally,
validating the scale of “Cultivate a CoP”. This is an exploratory pilot study with a first attempt
to quantify the CoP.
The “Cultivating a CoP” scale is a Likert 5-point six-dimension survey that assesses the
validity and reliability of the CoP scale. The results demonstrates four (4) of the six (6)
constructs have significant internal reliability at p = .05. The significant constructs with rank of
reliability strength are Convey domain, Align vision, Share expertise and Grow trust while
Motivate participants and Build artifacts did not demonstrate internal reliability. The six
dimensionality of the scale is challenged with significant correlation between Align vision with
Build artifacts and Convey domain.
The quantitative metaphor for the CoP theory that seeks to validate “Cultivate a CoP”
scale enhances the understanding of abstract inter-relationships among the constructs (latent
attributes). The resulting correlations through factor analysis will justify and enhance a CoP’s
sustainability. A healthy and sustainable CoP improves problem-solving synergy because of an
increased capability for change management and knowledge production.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
Data, information and information technology (IT) 6
Knowledge 7
Knowledge economic / market 8
Encultured Knowledge and Practice Language 9
Manage Change and Produce Knowledge 10
Social Learning System (SLS) 11
Community of practice (CoP) 12
Value of CoP 13
Boundaries Process 14
Identities 15
Life cycle of a CoP 16
Operating structure and mechanisms of a CoP 17
Organizational Competency of Problem Solving 18
Cultivating a Community of Practice (CoP) scale 19
3. RESEARCH METHODS 21
Research Design for “Cultivating a CoP” scale 22
Construct definition and content domain 22
Generating and consolidating measurement items 23
IDEF0 23
ICOMs and constructs 25
Content validation 26
Summary of constructs and indicators 26
Survey set up and design 31
Conducting studies to develop and refine the scale 32
Sample size and population 32
Factor analysis 32
4. RESULTS 34
Data set 34
Research question 35
Participants’ involvement levels 35
Survey results for Wichita Chapter of APICS and Wichita Chapter of
SWE 36
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Page
Data analysis 37
SPSS correlation analysis 38
Finalizing the scale 42
5. DISCUSSSION, LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 44
Theoretical implication 44
Practical implication 44
Limitation 45
Future research 46
6. CONCLUSIONS 48
BIBLIOGRAPHY 49
APPENDICES 55
A. Mind Map for Documenting Results of Literature Reviews 56
B. Initial Item Pool of Cultivating a CoP 55
C. Finalized Item Pool of Cultivating a CoP 58
D. IDEF0 Process: Viewpoint, Purpose and System Analysis Questions 59
E. The Circular Organic View of the Finalized ICOMs 60
F. IDEF0 – Glossary 61
G. Screen Shot of First Page of the Google® On-Line Survey 72
H. Sample Letter of Request for Survey Distribution and Participation 73
I. Layout of On-Line Survey Introduction and Purpose 74
J. Links to Google® “Cultivating a CoP” On-Line Surveys 75
K. The Survey of “Cultivating A Community of Practice” 76
L. Pearson Correlations and Two-Tailed P-Value of APICS Survey Results 80
M. Between and Within Correlation Analysis for APICS Survey Results 81
N. Questionnaires with Abbreviation 82

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Summary of Constructs and Indicators 27
2. Constructs and Questionnaires 34
3. Participant Involvement Classifications and Count for APICS and
SWE Survey Participation Rate 35

4. Survey Results from Wichita Chapter of APICS 36
5. Survey Results from Wichita Chapter of APICS 37
6. The Average Within (Internal) Correlation of APICS Survey Results 39

7. R-Matrix -Average Between Correlations Among the Six “Cultivate
CoP” Constructs 39

8. Pearson Correlation Between Participant Level (Pl) and Other
Indicators 41

9. Evaluation of Non-Reliable Indicators 42

10. Evaluation of Dimensionality 43

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. A Virtual Community of Practice Where Multiple CoPs Intercept 14
2. The Life Cycle of a CoP 17
3. Messy Problem Resides Outside the Boundaries of the CoP 19
4. SA Box of IDEF0 with Input, Control, Output and Mechanism
(ICOM) 24

5. IDEF0 Model - A1 Cultivating a CoP 25

6. Percent by Members’ Involvement Category 36
7. A-0 Diagram: Initiate Social Learning System 61
8. Emerged Boundary Where Different Disciplines Intercept 65
9. A0 Diagram: Construct Social Learning System 69

viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / NOMENCLATURE
APICS Association of Operations Management
AV Align Vision
BA Build Artifacts
CD Convey Domain
CoP Community of Practice
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
ES Effect Size
GT Grow Trust
ICOM Input. Control, Output, Mechanism
IDEF0 Integration Definition for Function Modeling
IT Information Technology
KM Knowledge Management
MP Motivate Participant
PL Participation Level
SA Structure Analysis
SADT Structured Analysis and Design Technique
SE Share Expertise
SLS Social Learning System
SSA System Structure Analysis
STV Subjects To Variable
vCoP Virtual Community of Practice

ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
An organization who attains an effective knowledge-sharing process achieves a
breakthrough competitive advantage (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). This thesis studies communities
of practice (CoP) that gather human intellect to enhance knowledge dissemination (Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, Cultivating communities of practice, 2002). A nurtured and cultivated
CoP can optimize its functionality and productivity.
1.1 Background
Drucker claimed that a fundamental need for management is to increase the efficiency of
knowledge management (KM) and production (Drucker P. , 1999). This need prompted a
knowledge management (KM) boom with extensive studies to search for a knowledge mining
mechanism that enables knowledge sharing, learning and creating (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
The history of KM reveals three different phases.
The first phase was the rush to use information technology (IT) to capture data and
information. The second phase focused on the issues of behavior, culture and tacit knowledge.
Now, the third phase realizes the social power of how a CoP can preserve and produce new
knowledge (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, Cultivating communities of practice, 2002). This
trend is consistent with the knowledge market that becomes a key resource for business survival.
Within a Social Learning System (SLS), learning simulates as a knowledge market where there
are buyers, sellers and brokers.
The knowledge market depends on the experience and know-how of employees that is
embedded in routines and practices to produce valuable products and services (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998). This knowledge is mainly tacit. It is unarticulated and unknown to others. It
1