Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Mehdi Shami Zanjani, Hamid Rahimian and Farnoosh Alami
communities (Zhang and Watts, 2008). In numerous firms across <strong>the</strong> globe, managers are expending
considerable resources to support or even formalize and construct <strong>the</strong>se informal organizational forms
in <strong>the</strong> hope <strong>of</strong> improving <strong>the</strong> firm’s competitive advantage based on knowledge (Schenkel and
Teigland, 2008).
More recent studies suggest that while organizations need to foster and participate in COPs to
leverage <strong>the</strong>ir full potential, <strong>the</strong>y cannot fully own or control <strong>the</strong>m (Probst and Borzillo, 2008).
The early research on COPs was focusing on face-to-face and collocated communities. However, <strong>the</strong>
proliferation <strong>of</strong> online collaboration tools, coupled with rapid global expansion <strong>of</strong> business
organizations, resulted in <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> a new form <strong>of</strong> collective learning and knowledge sharing:
virtual communities <strong>of</strong> practice (Ardichvili, 2008). Using a variety <strong>of</strong> tools in COPs, including
electronic mailing, bulletin boards, blogs, wikis, multi-user dungeons (MUDs) and o<strong>the</strong>r collaborative
technologies are very common today (Akoumianakis, 2009).
Chiu, Hsu, and Wang (2006) defined virtual communities as “online social networks in which people
with common interests, goals, or practices interact to share information and knowledge, and engage
in social interactions.”
There are various types <strong>of</strong> virtual communities (Cheung & Lee, 2009). They are developed to serve
different purposes, such as mental support, information/knowledge exchange, entertainment,
collaboration and production. A lot <strong>of</strong> attention has been paid to <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se communities
and <strong>the</strong>ir applicability to learning and information exchange. Many researchers have focused on <strong>the</strong>
use <strong>of</strong> virtual communities in student learning. Preece (2001) found that many initially active virtual
communities have failed to retain <strong>the</strong>ir members and have become ‘cyber ghost towns’. It is thus
important to understand what motivates members to continue using <strong>the</strong> virtual community (Cheung &
Lee, 2009).
Despite <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>usion <strong>of</strong> research about COPs, fewer studies tried to systematically analyze <strong>the</strong>
challenges <strong>of</strong> COPs, especially virtual COPs. Ardichvili (2008) argues that, currently, factors leading
to successful virtual COPs are not well understood.
Kerno and Mace (2010) believe that challenges confronting COPs are from <strong>the</strong> perspectives <strong>of</strong> time
demands and constraints, organizational hierarchies, and regional culture (socio-cultural
environment).
As highlighted by Loyarte and Rivera (2007), to integrate <strong>the</strong> COPs in organizations, it is important to
understand <strong>the</strong> four challenges for <strong>the</strong> cultivation <strong>of</strong> COPs which are: management challenge,
community challenge, technical challenge and personal challenge. (Cited in Loyarte and Rivera,
2007).
Huang et al. (2007) argued that it is important to identify factors hindering <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
community <strong>of</strong> practice to increase <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> successful knowledge sharing. They proposed a
ma<strong>the</strong>matical model to vividly demonstrate <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> knowledge diffusion activities in <strong>the</strong>
community <strong>of</strong> practice by considering various factors such as distance, knowledge gap, learning
ability and willingness to share.
Kimble and Hildreth (2005) mentioned that all members <strong>of</strong> COPs must have <strong>the</strong> desire, motivation
and will to work toge<strong>the</strong>r.
Ardichvili (2008) present a framework that includes key motivational factors, such as utilitarian
considerations, value-based considerations, and sense <strong>of</strong> community and belonging; barriers to
online knowledge sharing, including interpersonal factors, procedural and/or use <strong>of</strong> technology-related
factors, and cultural norms; and enablers <strong>of</strong> virtual COPs knowledge sharing, including supportive
organizational culture, presence <strong>of</strong> personal knowledge-based trust, and availability <strong>of</strong> adequate tools.
Probst and Borzillo (2008) conducted an investigation based on a questionnaire survey <strong>of</strong> 57 COP
leaders from major <strong>European</strong> and US companies. The results revealed ten governance mechanisms
linked to strategic objectives, an active collaboration between a ‘‘sponsor’’ from top management and
a COP ‘‘leader”, networking routines, a risk-free environment, and <strong>the</strong> measurement <strong>of</strong> a COP’s
931