Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Sheryl Buckley and Apostolos Giannakopoulos
for <strong>the</strong> department, its aim was merely to improve communication among academics members. But
<strong>the</strong> academics went a step fur<strong>the</strong>r and used <strong>the</strong> portal for many o<strong>the</strong>r purposes, which are in line with
an active CoP. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondents grabbed <strong>the</strong> opportunity to use <strong>the</strong> portal in a formal as well
as informal way for exchanging ideas. As ano<strong>the</strong>r respondent indicated, “<strong>the</strong> portal was a convenient
ga<strong>the</strong>ring place, whe<strong>the</strong>r formal or informal, which allows for a more voluntary exchange <strong>of</strong> ideas”.
The social aspect is highlighted here. Ano<strong>the</strong>r indicated that <strong>the</strong> portal “allows for a more voluntary
exchange <strong>of</strong> ideas”. This view is in line with that <strong>of</strong> Wenger (2004).
What also emerged from <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> portal was that although <strong>the</strong>re were some inhibitors (such as
available time), those who made extensive use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> portal reaped <strong>the</strong> benefits, since <strong>the</strong>y had
something in common (domain) to discuss in group form (community) and practised (practice) <strong>the</strong>ir
ideas. Domains, community and practice are <strong>the</strong> main ingredients <strong>of</strong> a functioning CoP (Wenger,
2004). Domain: There was a common goal (a common focus according to Wenger [2004]) which was
served by <strong>the</strong> portal, established by <strong>the</strong> department in order to improve knowledge-sharing practices.
Sixty three percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondents used <strong>the</strong> portal to communicate with o<strong>the</strong>r academic members
in a formal as well as informal (socialising) way. This is in line with <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> Batson, Ahmad and
Tsang (2002:439) who support <strong>the</strong> same view and who maintain that individuals are willing to help
one ano<strong>the</strong>r and share knowledge because <strong>of</strong> egoism, altruism, collectivism and principlism.
Community: The community consisted <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> department, <strong>the</strong> relationships <strong>the</strong>y had
formed among <strong>the</strong>mselves and a sense <strong>of</strong> belonging <strong>the</strong>y felt towards <strong>the</strong> community. The members
feel <strong>the</strong>y belong to <strong>the</strong> community. Wenger (2004), too, sees a CoP as involving people who interact
and who develop relationships that enable <strong>the</strong>m to address problems and share knowledge. The
community builds relationships that enable collective learning.
Practice: Practice was evident among <strong>the</strong> users <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> portal in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> body <strong>of</strong> knowledge, how
<strong>the</strong>y operated and used <strong>the</strong> documents <strong>the</strong>y shared with one ano<strong>the</strong>r. Wenger (2004) emphasises
that <strong>the</strong> practice in a CoP anchors <strong>the</strong> learning in what people do. The practice is <strong>the</strong> body <strong>of</strong>
knowledge, methods, tools, stories, cases and documents which members share and develop
toge<strong>the</strong>r.
Figure 2 presents a framework based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>mes specified in Table 4. These <strong>the</strong>mes were
grouped into <strong>the</strong> three key elements <strong>of</strong> a CoP: domain, community and practice. This framework could
be used to assist in <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> new CoPs and to improve existing CoPs where a society <strong>of</strong> CoPs
can ultimately develop. The findings positively suggest that a CoP might increase knowledge sharing
in a university. Domain has been linked to management, as management is perceived to have <strong>the</strong>
resources to create awareness among <strong>the</strong> academic community, to educate, encourage use, provide
support (financial and technical) and reward sharing. Without <strong>the</strong> support and approval <strong>of</strong>
management, no CoP can be created. Community and practice have been linked to academics.
Academics could develop, use, support, mentor and evaluate CoPs. Finally, CoPs are integrated to
form global societies <strong>of</strong> CoPs in which academics participate.
7. Conclusion
From <strong>the</strong> results, <strong>the</strong> question as to whe<strong>the</strong>r CoPs existed was affirmative since <strong>the</strong> main elements <strong>of</strong>
a CoP ei<strong>the</strong>r featured, or were accepted by most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondents. One factor that appears to
inhibit ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> flourishing <strong>of</strong> an existing CoP or <strong>the</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> a new one is too little time. Most <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> respondents accepted <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r elements. This is very encouraging, since if <strong>the</strong> necessary
elements to establish a CoP are available, <strong>the</strong>n half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> objective has already been achieved. The
two factors that appear from <strong>the</strong> findings to play an important role in <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> knowledge
sharing are <strong>the</strong> attitudes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> academics and advertising <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CoP by management. Management
has <strong>the</strong> ability to create an atmosphere that can be conducive to <strong>the</strong> sharing and creating <strong>of</strong>
knowledge among academics by focusing on <strong>the</strong> domain, community and practice.
It is <strong>the</strong> combination <strong>of</strong> a domain, community and practice that constitute a community <strong>of</strong> practice.
And it is by developing <strong>the</strong>se three elements in parallel that such a community is cultivated. In a
higher education institution, where knowledge is created, disseminated and transmitted, management
perhaps needs to play an even more active role in developing communities <strong>of</strong> practice if such
communities are to be successful.
110