Communities of practice: from innovation in practice to the practice of innovation

Josserand, EL; Villeseche, F

Communities of practice: from innovation in practice to the practice of innovation

Josserand, EL Villeseche, F

Permalink

Publisher:: Edward Elgar
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Innovation, 2012, 1st, pp. 256 - 274
Issue Date:: 2012-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2012002347OK.pdf	Published version	5.9 MB		View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Josserand, EL	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Villeseche, F	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Pitsis, T	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Simpson, A	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Dehlin, E	en_US
dc.date.issued	2012-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Innovation, 2012, 1st, pp. 256 - 274	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9781849802574	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/31929
dc.description.abstract	Emmanuel Josserand and Florence Villesèche INTRODUCTION In the quest to explain competitive advantage, the knowledge view of the firm appears to be one of the most topical alternatives to transaction costs economics. The ability to share and generate knowledge is thus considered a key capability (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Merali, 2000). Beyond the initial fads around technology and ITdriven knowledge management projects (Swan et al., 1999), research points to the importance of cultural (McDermott, 1999; Ndlela and du Toit, 2001) and structural change (Grant, 1996; Buckley and Carter, 2002) to favour openness to learning and sharing. This openness is deemed hard to achieve in bureaucratic organizations (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Ravasi and Verona, 2001). How do organizations deal with the apparent contradiction between a necessary order that could lead to bureaucracy and the strategic importance of an innovative openness that could lead to chaos? According to Wenger and Snyder: todays economy runs on knowledge, and most companies work assiduously to capitalize on that fact. They use cross-functional teams, customer- or productfocused business units, and work groups to name just a few organizational forms to capture and spread ideas and know-how. In many cases, these ways of organizing are very effective and no one would argue for their demise. (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, p. 139) However, these forms are usually formal groups often driven by shortterm objectives. Communities of practice (CoPs) a new name for an old practice have been theorized since the early 1990s	en_US
dc.publisher	Edward Elgar	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Innovation	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.4337/9781849802574.00018	en_US
dc.relation.isreplacedby	10453/41383
dc.relation.isreplacedby	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/41383
dc.title	Communities of practice: from innovation in practice to the practice of innovation	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.location	Cheltenham Uk, Northampton MA, USA	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management	en_US
utslib.citation.edition	1st	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/School of Management
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - Management and Organisation Studies
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.declined	1970-01-01T00:00:00.0+1000
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.merge-to	10453/41383
pubs.merge-to	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/41383
pubs.deleted	1970-01-01T00:00:00.0+1000
pubs.edition	1st	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Cheltenham Uk, Northampton MA, USA	en_US

Abstract:

Emmanuel Josserand and Florence Villesèche INTRODUCTION In the quest to explain competitive advantage, the knowledge view of the firm appears to be one of the most topical alternatives to transaction costs economics. The ability to share and generate knowledge is thus considered a key capability (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Merali, 2000). Beyond the initial fads around technology and ITdriven knowledge management projects (Swan et al., 1999), research points to the importance of cultural (McDermott, 1999; Ndlela and du Toit, 2001) and structural change (Grant, 1996; Buckley and Carter, 2002) to favour openness to learning and sharing. This openness is deemed hard to achieve in bureaucratic organizations (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Ravasi and Verona, 2001). How do organizations deal with the apparent contradiction between a necessary order that could lead to bureaucracy and the strategic importance of an innovative openness that could lead to chaos? According to Wenger and Snyder: todays economy runs on knowledge, and most companies work assiduously to capitalize on that fact. They use cross-functional teams, customer- or productfocused business units, and work groups to name just a few organizational forms to capture and spread ideas and know-how. In many cases, these ways of organizing are very effective and no one would argue for their demise. (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, p. 139) However, these forms are usually formal groups often driven by shortterm objectives. Communities of practice (CoPs) a new name for an old practice have been theorized since the early 1990s

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/31929