Organizations and KM
From [[http://cpsquare.org CPsquare]], the community of practice on communities of practice.
|
- Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
- Dewhurst, F. W. & Navarro, J. G. C. (2004). External communities of practice and relational capital. The Learning Organization, 11(4/5), 322-331.
- Gongla, P. & Rizzuto, C.R. (2001). Evolving communities of practice: IBM Global Services experience. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 842-862.
- Lesser, E. L. & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831-841.
- Etienne Wenger, Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy throughcommunities of practice, Ivey Business Journal January/February 2004 http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/1890/Knowledge-management-as-a-doughnut.pdf.pdf
- Henriksson, K. (2000). When communities of practice came to town: on culture and contradiction in emerging theories of organizational learning. http://www.actkm.com/actkm%20articles/Locklee%20-%20CoPLiteratureReviewMaster.pdf
- Plaskoff, J. (2003). Intersubjectivity and community-building: Learning to learn organizationally. In M. Lyles and M. Easterby-Smith (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 161 - 184). New York: Blackwell.
- Wanda J. Orlikowski, Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective, in Joanne Yates and John Van Maanen, eds, Information Technology and Organizational Transformation: History, Rhetoric, and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Commentary: This utterly excellent paper traces a cascade of five changes that took place, one after another, in an organization that adopted Lotus Notes. Orlikowski's description of these changes, though lengthy and detailed, repays careful reading. Her argument is that these changes were largely emergent, that is, they were not planned but arose through the workers' responses to situations as they encountered them -- situations that were, in large part, created as outcomes of their own responses to the situations that had gone before. In sociological language, Orlikowski is describing a recursive relationship between human agency and the social system that both provides the terrain for action and is created by that action in turn. For example, the first change involved data entry, which turned out to present much more challenging issues than anyone expected, and which then changed the workers' relationships to customers in new ways as well. The result was a reshuffled array of practices and a new equilibrium that then provided the status quo for the next change. That second change involved a new division of labor that digital records made possible, and that then led to subsequent issues and more changes. This paper is organizational ethnography at its absolute best, serious social theory integrated with fine-grained use of narrative evidence. A next step might be to analyze the materials on other, "higher" levels, such as the specific industry that the company Orklikowski studied is part of and its longer-term historical evolution. -- Phil Agre
- Martin Rouleaux-Dugage, Organisation 2.0: le knowledge management nouvelle generation (Organization 2.0: the new generation in Knowledge Management). The thrust of the book is that organizations today have to function as collaborative networks. Trust then becomes an essential enabler in a company's culture. From this perspective, a key value of communities of practice is that they act as what the author calls "social structures of trust." They are part of a cultural transformation that makes it possible for an organization to move into the 21st century.
