Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

2. Technology and infrastructure
Sheryl Buckley and Apostolos Giannakopoulos
Improvements in communication and transportation technology over recent centuries have resulted in
shifts in community ties from being primarily people-to-people in geographical places to people-topeople
irrespective <strong>of</strong> local geography (Jones & Grandhi, 2005:216). A group can interact without
everyone ga<strong>the</strong>ring at a particular time. As a result people on very different schedules or in distant
time zones can still exchange messages and sustain discussions (Kollock & Smith, 1999).
The main emphasis <strong>of</strong> technology should be to enable community participants to share experience
(Finerty, 1997). In a university context, computers can help students and academics locate community
resources (people, information, etc.) based on <strong>the</strong>ir need (Hay, 1993). It can be argued that
academics looking for knowledge connect with those who possess it and in this way <strong>the</strong>y are able to
improve <strong>the</strong>ir practice and create a competitive sustainable advantage for <strong>the</strong>mselves and <strong>the</strong>
institution. One way to achieve this is through a CoP.
Online communities have a purpose, are supported by technology, and are guided by norms and
policies (Preece, 2000). Beenen, Ling, Wang, Chang, Resnick and Kraut (2004) argue despite <strong>the</strong>
vibrancy <strong>of</strong> online communities, large numbers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m fail. For example, Butler found that 50% <strong>of</strong>
social, hobby, and work mailing lists had no traffic over a 4-month period. Under-contribution is a
problem even in communities that do survive. In a majority <strong>of</strong> active mailing lists, fewer than 50% <strong>of</strong>
subscribers posted even a single message in a 4-month period.
For Tyler, Wilkinson and Huberman (n.d.), email has become <strong>the</strong> predominant means <strong>of</strong>
communication in <strong>the</strong> information society. Email has been established as an indicator <strong>of</strong> collaboration
and knowledge exchange (Wellman, 2002; Whittaker & Sidner, 1996). This volume <strong>of</strong> data enables
<strong>the</strong> discovery <strong>of</strong> shared interests and relationships where none were previously known (Schwartz &
Wood, 1992). Given its ubiquity, it is a promising resource for tapping into <strong>the</strong> dynamics <strong>of</strong> information
within organisations, and for extracting <strong>the</strong> hidden patterns <strong>of</strong> collaboration and leadership that are at
<strong>the</strong> heart <strong>of</strong> CoP. This is one reason e-mail is still a very successful community tool in spite <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong>
recent developments: it integrates community interactions in <strong>the</strong> tool where people spend a large
portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir working and social lives (Wenger et al., 2005).
Wenger et al. (2005) maintain that great care should be taken in <strong>the</strong> design process <strong>of</strong> technological
tools to facilitate CoPs as <strong>the</strong> technologies need to support <strong>the</strong> intertwined evolution <strong>of</strong> domain,
community and practice without overbuilding and which are <strong>the</strong> salient features (Wenger, 2004) <strong>of</strong> a
CoP.
3. Knowledge sharing
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most important aspects <strong>of</strong> CoPs is that a group <strong>of</strong> people share knowledge, learn toge<strong>the</strong>r
and create common practices. Community members frequently help one ano<strong>the</strong>r solve problems, give
one ano<strong>the</strong>r advice and develop new approaches or tools for <strong>the</strong>ir field. As <strong>the</strong>y share ideas and
experiences, people develop a shared way <strong>of</strong> doing things, a set <strong>of</strong> common practices. Sometimes
<strong>the</strong>y formalise <strong>the</strong>se in guidelines and standards, but <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong>y simply remain ‘what everybody
knows’ about good practice. Since CoPs focus on topics that people are <strong>of</strong>ten passionately interested
in, <strong>the</strong>y can become important sources <strong>of</strong> individual identity.
The interactions involved, and <strong>the</strong> ability to undertake larger or more complex activities and projects
through cooperation, bind people toge<strong>the</strong>r and help to facilitate relationship and trust. Organisations
<strong>of</strong>ten fail to recognise that knowledge is created and shared through social interaction between
people. These interpersonal relationships form a pattern and are referred to as social innovation
capital or social capital (McElroy, 2002:30). It is in communities that “individuals develop <strong>the</strong> capacity
to create, refine, share and eventually apply knowledge – knowledge that makes an individual a
valuable organisational resource” (Thomas, 2002). Although <strong>the</strong>se communities are mainly selforganisational,
<strong>the</strong>re needs to be a certain measure <strong>of</strong> facilitation, encouragement and management
in <strong>the</strong> manner in which knowledge is created, shared and applied, even if it is only to ensure a
supportive environment.
Hew and Hara (2007:589) add that conversation is also an important conduit for knowledge sharing
among members in CoPs. Batson, Ahmad and Tsang (2002:439), on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, maintain that
individuals are willing to help one ano<strong>the</strong>r and share knowledge because <strong>of</strong> egoism, altruism,
104