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

Ettore Bolisani, Francesca Gambarotto and Enrico Scarso
activity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> university CoP was mostly kept in <strong>the</strong> shadow, which however raised problems <strong>of</strong>
recognition and effectiveness.
A second point is <strong>the</strong> strong support by top management, surely more difficult in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> a public
institution where this would require a number <strong>of</strong> formal decisions by internal <strong>of</strong>fices. Also, it is likely
that all potential stakeholders (directors, employees, trade unions, etc.) have to be consulted, while in
a private company all appears to be more fluid. It is also hard to imagine a CoP without leadership
and clear rules. A purely voluntary approach to CoP building may not be enough. At Eni, even though
<strong>the</strong> free participation is promoted, a governance structure and a set <strong>of</strong> rules have been established.
5.2 Cognitive aspects
A common element <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two cases is <strong>the</strong> necessity to define <strong>the</strong> domain <strong>of</strong> a CoP. As <strong>the</strong> Eni case
shows, it is important that a CoP underpins <strong>the</strong> relevant KM processes to <strong>the</strong> organisation. This is
necessary for making CoPs a tool for <strong>the</strong> “everyday work”. As <strong>the</strong> university CoP shows, supplying a
pure discussion platform for sharing contents can be <strong>of</strong> some use, but <strong>the</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system
becomes questionable and, especially, can be only based on some “enthusiasts” that voluntary keep
<strong>the</strong> CoP active. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, not giving “organisational reasons” to participate can limit <strong>the</strong>
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> CoPs.
5.3 Economic aspects
There are major differences here that directly relate to <strong>the</strong> different context <strong>of</strong> application. For a
private company, it is necessary to assess costs and benefits <strong>of</strong> CoPs. This is difficult and <strong>the</strong>re is no
standard method to do that. However, <strong>the</strong> effort is worthwhile, because it allows to budget funds and
expenses in a reasonable way.
This is more complicated in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> a public institution. The accounting system is different from
private companies, and is <strong>of</strong>ten subjected to specific regulations that may not fit <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> a CoP
and its intangible nature. Secondly, budgeting is less relevant, unless a project is formally framed into
a bureaucratic system (i.e. an <strong>of</strong>fice, a cost centre, etc.). The lack <strong>of</strong> accounting and budgeting may
however reduce <strong>the</strong> recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> a CoP.
The same can be said <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reward system. Free participation in a CoP is welcome, but individuals
must get some recognition for <strong>the</strong>ir participation. As <strong>the</strong> Eni case shows, it is not easy to find <strong>the</strong>
proper solution which fits organisational settings and corporate culture. But neglecting this aspect can
reduce <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system. Unfortunately, <strong>the</strong> public environment is too rigid to allow <strong>the</strong>
implementation <strong>of</strong> a reward mechanism for an innovative system like a CoP: <strong>the</strong>re may be resistances
from both management and employees.
5.4 Technological aspect
In both cases technology has an essential function: accessibility. Users need to access <strong>the</strong> system
from everywhere and in a user-friendly way. However <strong>the</strong>re are some differences between <strong>the</strong> two
organisations, in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir structural characteristics. In particular, although <strong>the</strong>ir overall size is
comparable in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people that can be potential beneficiaries (Eni has around 70,000
employees, <strong>the</strong> University about 70,000 people including students and pr<strong>of</strong>essors), Eni CoPs cover all
world while university’s people are located in one place, which affected <strong>the</strong> technological choices.
User-friendliness <strong>of</strong> technology is especially important in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge, but explicit
contents are relevant as well: Eni’s CoPs show that structuring <strong>the</strong> knowledge collected from
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals is important for its subsequent retrieval and reuse. Again, this requires a process <strong>of</strong>
analysis and formalisation <strong>of</strong> KM processes, and resources assigned to <strong>the</strong>m. Conversely, CoPs
limited to a pure knowledge sharing platform (like <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> university) appear less costly and
easier, but restricted in scope.
113