Community and Collaboration tools in the Italian banking ... - CiteSeerX

60

Int. J. Electronic Banking, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008

Community and Collaboration tools in the Italian banking industry Mariano Corso and Andrea Giacobbe School of Management, Polythecnic of Milano, P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 20133 Milano (I) E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Antonella Martini* Faculty of Engineering, University of Pisa, Via Diotisalvi, 2, 56122 Pisa (I) Fax: 9 050 2217333 E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: This paper aims to provide:

1

a description from a strategic, organisational and technological point of view of “the state-of-the-art” of Community and Collaboration (C&C) tools in the Italian banking industry

2

a roadmap to help management to implement C&C tools.

The research is based on 16 retrospective case studies that cover more than 50% of the banking sector in Italy by number of employees. The findings provide interesting elements and suggestions to develop a Community in a banking context. Keywords: CoP; community of practice; collaboration tools; intranet; Italian banking industry; case studies; ICT. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Corso, M., Giacobbe, A. and Martini, A. (2008) ‘Community and Collaboration tools in the Italian banking industry’, Int. J. Electronic Banking, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.60–72. Biographical notes: Mariano Corso, PhD, is full Professor of Management Engineering in the Faculty of System Engineering, Polythecnic of Milano. He is Director of the Master in Management and Organisational Development and of the Observatories on New Information Systems and ICT Strategic Sourcing. He is the author or co-author of more than 100 international publications. Andrea Giacobbe, PhD, is researcher at the School of Management, Polythecnic of Milano, and project manager of the Observatory on intranet applications and Enterprise 2.0. His main research interests are business communities, intranet and knowledge management.

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Communities and Collaboration tools in the Italian banking industry

61

Antonella Martini, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Engineering, University of Pisa, where she teaches Innovation Management and Business Economics and Organisation. Her main research interests are knowledge management and continuous innovation and she is actively involved in national and international research in these areas. She is a member of the international board of the Continuous Innovation Network (CINet) and author or co-author of more than 50 international publications.

1

Introduction

In today’s economy where the knowledge of the workforce constitutes the majority of an organisation’s ‘capital’, developing and retaining business knowledge and talents stand at the forefront of business issues (Malhotra, 2005). In fact, unlike other competitive resources, knowledge belongs to individuals rather than to organisations. Knowledge management means creating the ‘organisational conditions’ in which individuals are stimulated to assimilate, create, transfer, share, capitalise and apply knowledge in line with organisation’s aims. In particular, theory and evidence suggest that knowledge creation and sharing are processes that often involve spontaneously formed groups of individuals. Individuals often choose other individuals with whom to cooperate beyond structures and formal ties (i.e., departments, divisions, etc.), creating informal networks that overlap formal, top-down designed structures within the organisation. Among the different types of informal networks, Communities of Practice (CoPs) seem to be the most interesting from a knowledge management point of view. Through Communities, individuals find the answers to those needs of sociality, belonging and experience sharing that organisations are finding increasingly difficult to satisfy. Moreover, communities offer firms new ways to connect people, overcoming the geographical and organisational boundaries of the traditional firm structure. From the technological point of view, the great opportunity is provided by the web as the place in which to design and manage Communities. In this sense, collaborative tools are the next generation of knowledge management projects and seem to be the most interesting developments (Andriessen, 2002; Wenger and Snyder, 2000). In Italy, the banking industry is experiencing an organisational and technological metamorphosis. The evolution from a predominantly hierarchical model to a mainly professional structure with horizontal relations makes the development of Community & Collaboration (C&C) tools (such as forum, chat, e-room, mailing list, etc.) a strategic area of interest. These tools can be a fundamental communication channel that enables horizontal Collaboration, fostering knowledge exchange between different branches of the organisation and the creation of a common business culture. However, to develop and implement a C&C strategy in a bank may become very difficult, because of its culture, policies, hierarchy and inertia. This paper aims to address these issues, presenting first the state-of-the-art in the development and diffusion of C&C tools in the Italian banking industry. Second, a Community management model (the roadmap) to help management to create, develop and run a Community is presented.

62

2

M. Corso et al.

Theoretical background

The term ‘Community of Practice’ was introduced by Wenger and Leave in the early 1990s. The concept was born (Knowledge Board, 2003) within a research project run at the Institute for Research on Learning (IRL), a spin-off of Xerox Corp.’s Palo Alto Research Centre (PARC). At that time, Wenger and Leave were studying apprenticeship as a way to share knowledge. They noticed that learning is not just a one-to-one relationship with a master, but also a relationship with a whole community of people, with apprentices at different levels. The intuition came by observing a group of Xerox’s copy machine technicians gathering around vendor machines and spontaneously sharing their ‘tricks’ and telling each other stories regarding repairing experiences. Technicians, before checking handbooks or ‘official’ learning material, usually contact colleagues to find information and suggestions for their jobs. The group was in some way the primary context where any new technicians could form their own expertise. One of the main conclusions drawn by IRL was that learning is a social fact, fostered by involvement and participation in a practice. Scientific literature provides several definitions of Communities of Practice (Brown et al., 1998; Marathe, 1999; Wenger and Snyder, 2000; Magnusson and Davidsson, 2001; Andriessen et al., 2002), but all of them starting from different points of view, stress the role the community has in enabling and facilitating knowledge creation and sharing that allows its members to learn and develop their competencies. Wenger, in particular, defines the CoP as a group of individuals who share a common interest, a set of problems or a passion and who increase their knowledge and the understanding of these aspects through interpersonal relationships (Wenger et al., 2002). Wenger et al. (2002) identify three common characteristics of Communities of Practice, although they recognise that communities assume different forms according to the context in which they exist. These three characteristics are: •

domain, the area of interest, which creates a common base among members and allows them to development group identity

•

community, the learning social factory (Wenger, 1998), a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships and through this develop a sense of membership and reciprocal commitment

•

practice, the shared repertory of competencies and common resources (i.e., routines, documents, tools, styles, legends, symbols and language) that members have developed; this repertory includes the knowledge created and shared in the past and allows for future learning, for trusted relationships and for circulation of explicit and tacit knowledge.

Each CoP is a different combination of these fundamental aspects, which evolve according to the context in which the community exists through a process of continuous re-definition led by its members. In spite of this, there is still a lack of empirically grounded studies aimed at understanding the ‘state-of-the-art’ of C&C tools. In particular, there is no research in the banking industry that analyses the development and diffusion of these tools, nor any model that helps management to introduce them into an organisation.


3

63

Research aims and methodology

Starting from these literature results and following an in-depth analysis of the Italian banking industry, this study aims to: •

describe ‘the state-of-the-art’ of C&C tools in Italian banks from a strategic, organisational and technological point of view

•

define a roadmap to help management in choosing and implementing C&C tools in line with the bank’s specific characteristics.

The research is based on case study methodology: 16 cases are reported, which refer to 23 Communities, as there may be more than one Community in a bank. Given the high level of concentration in this service industry, the 16 case studies cover more than 50% of the employees in the industry in Italy. Multiple data collection methods, both qualitative and quantitative (Yin, 1984), were used to obtain the triangulation of the information acquired. Data were collected to acquire as much information as possible about the bank, the Collaboration tools and the single Communities. In particular, data were gathered from the following sources: •

documentation about the bank analysed

•

a questionnaire to the Community manager and to the IT manager

•

semi-structured interviews with the Community manager and informants in the department in which the Community exists

•

online analysis of the Collaboration tools and of the activities of members.

The questionnaire used closed questions, but with an open field for comments or more in-depth explanations. The use of semi-structured interviews gave a good deal of freedom to the interviewer and interviewee, but at the same time assured that all relevant subjects were discussed and all the required information collected. Two different check lists (one for key informant people and another for community coordinators) were, therefore, used to define the subjects to cover. However, the order of the questions, the topics to study in depth, the level of detail, and the words to use, etc. were decided by the interviewer during the meeting. A report was written for each case study after the interview.

4

The state-of-the art of the C&C tools in the Italian banking industry

We report first the presence, the diffusion and the target of the collaboration tools, and then analyse the governance mechanisms and barriers to evolution.

4.1 Presence and diffusion of Collaborations tools The analysis of bank Information Systems shows clearly that banks are moving their business process to the Net, with high integration levels and the ultimate goal of achieving an exclusively virtual workplace. Greater support of businesses often leads to

64

M. Corso et al.

greater support of vertical and horizontal relationships, with the aim of fostering knowledge sharing and capitalisation. This trend emerges from the analysis of the presence and the planned future development of C&C tools. C&C tools have been divided into two different sets: •

synchronous tools that allow communication and collaboration in real time and need the simultaneous presence of the participants: e.g., chat, instant messaging, video-conference, presence awareness, virtual collaboration workplace.

•

asynchronous tools that allow participants to communicate with each other even if they are not online at the same time: e.g., mailing lists, forums, file-sharing systems, tools for project management, expert searches, virtual workplaces, SMS (sent from the intranet), blog, wiki.

The research shows that just 2 banks out of 16 do not have and are not intending to implement any C&C tools. All the other banks have Collaboration tools, particularly asynchronous functions. Figure 1, in which each bank is represented as a number, maps the present and future diffusion of synchronous vs. asynchronous tools. Figure 1

Presence of Collaboration tools (see online version for colours)

The research shows that Collaborative work tools (such as project management tools, diary sharing, file-sharing systems, and videoconference tools) are the most common. Forums and mailing lists are the most widespread Community management tools (Figure 2). Upon cross-referencing the present and future presence of Collaboration tools, it is possible to point out three different clusters (Figure 3): •

‘marginal’ or ‘niche’ tools with low level of current and planned presence, such as SMS via the intranet, expert search, chat and virtual workspace

•

‘commodity’ tools, with a high level of current presence, but no particular planned evolution

•

emergent tools, growing rapidly, some not so common so far (e.g., instant messaging, presence awareness), others more widspread (e.g., file-sharing systems, project management tools, diary sharing).

Communities and Collaboration tools in the Italian banking industry Figure 2

Diffusion and planned development of Collaboration tools (see online version for colours)

Figure 3

Collaboration tools: current and future presence (see online version for colours)

65

Upon cross-referencing the current presence and utilisation level of Collaboration tools, it is possible to make some interesting considerations (Figure 4) on the effectiveness of this tool in banks: •

Some of the less used tools are also the most widspread (forum, mailing list, videoconference).

•

Some tools that are less widespread than others have a good utilisation level when present, e.g., asynchronous one-to-one SMS via intranet or synchronous instant messaging. The introduction of these tools can be useful to spread a Collaboration culture among employees.

•

Tools with acknowledged effectiveness and high utilisation levels are those oriented towards supporting collaborative work, such as file-sharing systems, virtual workplaces, diary sharing and project management tools.

66 Figure 4

M. Corso et al. Utilisation level of Collaboration tools (see online version for colours)

4.2 Targets and the emergence of Communities Analysing the target of those tools, it emerges that in 38% of the cases, C&C tools are available for all employees and used as ‘general-purpose’ tools. In the remaining 62%, these tools are developed for specific targets or professional families and with precise aims. In particular, as shown in Figure 5, banks have developed or are introducing these tools for branch employees, the IT department, headquarters or area employees, multi-disciplinary project groups, and the Organisation department. Figure 5

Main targets of C&C tools (see online version for colours)

The most frequent aims related to the introduction of C&C tools in banks are: to improve effectiveness or efficiency, share knowledge, define or consolidate a shared corporate culture and identity (in particular after reorganisation or merger/acquisition operations), and improve planning and process control abilities. We tried to understand in which targets the introduction of C&C tools is most successful and which are the characteristics of those targets. The research shows that one of the features of successful Communities is the level of interaction between members (using other tools such as e-mail, telephone, etc.).


67

A great need for communication tools and a natural network of relations are a fertile field in which to launch C&C tools. Another dimension is the geographic dispersion of the members that leads to the use of Collaboration tools to overcome time-spatial barriers. In Figure 6 (and in the following figures), each letter represents a Community. It is clear that in the banking industry, geographical dispersion and the level of interaction between employees are usually middle-high, so creating a good environment for these tools to spread. Figure 6

Interaction level and geographical dispersion (see online version for colours)

A second map considers the level of experience of the members (if this is heterogeneous, the Community is usually oriented to share experience and knowledge between members; otherwise, it is usually a Community of experts in specific topics) and the level of stability (related to the sense of belonging to the Community). In banking, where staff turnover is usually lower than in other industries, Communities are generally stable and composed of members with different levels of experience (Figure 7). Figure 7

Homogeneity and stability (see online version for colours)

68

M. Corso et al.

A thorough analysis of C&C tools reveals that there is not any correlation between the introduction of these tools and the characteristics of the target. It also shows an absence of any strategic planning and target analysis in the design phase of the Community.

4.3 Governance mechanisms and barriers to development and diffusion To analyse governance choices, we have cross-referenced top management sponsorship with the formalisation of Community management roles. Three clusters are recognisable (Figure 8; some Communities are still in a design phase): •

introduction not organisationally mature, with low top management sponsorship and no definition of any roles

•

growing Communities with high sponsorship, but roles so far not defined

•

introduction organisationally mature, with roles defined and a high level of commitment from top management.

In banks, there seems to be a good awareness of the potential benefits of these tools among top management, and this usually corresponds to an explicit definition of Community management roles. Figure 8

Sponsorship and Community management roles (see online version for colours)

There are many barriers or ‘alibi’ to the development and the diffusion of C&C tools. Some frequently cited examples are: limited knowledge about these tools (5 cases); lack of understanding of potential benefits (4 cases); user resistance (3 cases). Other barriers are related to the difficulties in quantifying benefits in relation to costs (usually well defined), limited experience in using these kinds of tools, a predilection for personal relations (not mediated by tools). Those barriers can be divided into two main classes: barriers related to members’ involvement and barriers related to lack of organisational commitment. These are the two main variables from a change management point of view; working on these two aspects can help to solve many of the barriers cited above. Upon cross-referencing these two dimensions (organisational commitment and members’ involvement) and mapping the Communities analysed, it is possible to define three main clusters (Figure 9):

Communities and Collaboration tools in the Italian banking industry •

start-up initiatives with a good commitment from the organisation that have to involve members

•

initiatives with limited organisational commitment but with a good level of participation; in these cases, it becomes essential to obtain support from top management by illustrating the benefits generated by the Community for the organisation

•

strategic initiatives with high commitment and members’ involvement; in the banking industry, this is the largest cluster.

Figure 9

69

Organisational commitment and members’ involvement (see online version for colours)

The research highlights that when Community management roles are defined and animation and promotion plans are implemented, i.e., when a governance strategy is defined, members’ commitment grows. In particular, it is possible to notice a direct relation between the systematic definition of governance and the utilisation level of C&C tools (Figure 10). Figure 10 Governance definition and utilisation level (see online version for colours)

70

5

M. Corso et al.

A roadmap for Community management

In this section, we present a Community management model, developed on the basis of the literature analysis and, in particular, of the experience acquired in research on these topics. The model is divided into six phases (Figure 11): strategic concept, definition of governance, design, implementation and launch, day-by-day operations, and assessment. The phases are placed on a cyclical scheme, so that each phase’s output serves as the input to the next phase. Figure 11 A model for business community management

The strategic concept phase is about understanding the business value of the Community. The domain of the Community, its scope and its expected outcomes are decided here by the organisation’s top management. Strategic concept is about balancing the organisational and individuals’ learning focus to obtain a desired output. This results in a precise choice regarding the type of the Community to build. When the individuals’ learning focus prevails, the resulting Community is aimed at helping members to get the information they need. If adequately developed, this type of Community might in the long run be ideal to augment individuals’ knowledge. When the organisational learning focus prevails, the resulting Community is aimed at supporting the business processes and, in the long run, at fostering innovation. The governance definition phase is about translating the strategic idea into an actual project to be managed. It consists of the definition of the Community management: Which people to involve with which responsibility roles? What structure to implement to supporting the Community?, What resource to use? Each decision taken has to be coherent with the strategic goals and with the environment in which the Community will operate. Among the roles to identify, the Community manager is by far the most important. The Community manager acts as the coordinator of the other actors. On the organisational side, the manager is the link with the top management that defines the strategic goals. The Community manager also has to coordinate the technical people who develop the support platform where the Community lives. On the Community side, the Community manager interacts with all the members and also with the editorial staff that has to keep the members continuously engaged and committed. The design phase is about defining and detailing an implementation plan with all due requirements. The implementation consists of the development, through releases, of the services that the members will access. Each release must also be accompanied by an


71

adequate launch. The technological tools have to be carefully selected and always have to be accompanied by an adequate organisational implementation. The day-by-day operations phase demands a coherent and organic way to use managerial levers to direct the Community towards the goals assessed in the strategic concept phase, which usually imply either fostering members’ participation or the organisation’s commitment or both. Typical levers are, for instance, what Corso et al. (2008) call animation and promotion. Animation consists of the set of activities aimed at keeping the members engaged in Community life. Promotion, on the other hand, is targeted at highlighting how beneficial the Community is for the rest of the organisation. Finally, in the assessment phase, the fit between the strategic goals and the Community outcomes is measured. A diagnosis should identify the existing gaps and serve as input for the next phase, where suitable countermeasures have to be found. The colours used in the model in Figure 11 try to highlight the relationships between the different phases. By defining the Community goals, the strategic concept phase also has to define a coherent way to assess the gap between those goals and the actual situation, i.e., the measures to be used in the assessment phase. In a similar way, the day-by-day operations have to be run according to the rules and the roles defined in the governance definition phase. Finally, the design phase must consider not only each platform element and service to be implemented in the Community, but also the interactions among all elements and services, as defined in the implementation plan.

6

Final remarks: developing communities in the banking industry

This research provides interesting elements and suggestions to develop Communities in the banking sector: •

In the strategic concept definition, it emerges that it is convenient to focus attention on geographically dispersed targets with a stable belonging level, a good level of interaction between members and a heterogeneous level of experience.

•

In governance definition, there is a clear correlation between the systematic nature of the governance and the level of use and, consequently, of the benefit achievable. In the day-by-day operations, animation and promotion levers are fundamental in obtaining a high level of member involvement.

•

With regard to design, implementation and launch, some good practices seem to release asynchronous tools first and then subsequently enrich the system with synchronous facilities.

•

In the assessment phase, Community goals are too often defined in a generic way, and sometimes some Communities tend to find their own ways.

Finally, it is interesting to note that these tools have a strong ‘viral power’. The successful introduction of a Community triggers imitation mechanisms that lead to the creation of new Communities, so fostering a Collaboration and knowledge-sharing culture in the organisation.

72

M. Corso et al.

References Andriessen, E., Soekijad, M. and Keasberry, H.J. (2002) Support for Knowledge Sharing in Communities, Delft University Press, The Netherlands. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, S. (1998) ‘Situated cognition and the culture of learning’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 1, pp.32–42. Corso, M., Martini, A. and Balocco, R. (2008) ‘Organising for continuous innovation: the communities of practice approach’, International Journal of Technology Management, forthcoming. Knowledge Board (2003) Interview with Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice, from www. knowledgeboard.com Magnusson, M. and Davidsson, N. (2001) ‘Creating and managing communities of knowing’, International Conference on Entrepreneurship and Learning, Naples, Italy, June, pp.21–24. Malhotra, Y. (2005) ‘Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, pp.7–28. Marathe (1999) The Gender Culture Kaleidoscope: Images of Women’s Identity and Place in Organization, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Newcastle Business School. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wenger, E. and Snyder, W. (2000) ‘Communities of practice: the organizational frontier’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1, pp.139–145. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: Guide to Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press. Yin, R. (1984) Case Study Research, SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Bibliography Adams, J.D. (2001) ‘Managing dispersed work effectively’, OD Practitioner, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.9–15. American Productivity & Quality Center (2000) Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice: Continuing Success in Knowledge Management, APQC International benchmarking Clearinghouse (on www.apqc.org). Burton, B. (2005) Best Practices for Delivering Business Value from Collaboration, Gartner Research, USA. Leave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tyndale, P. (2002) ‘A taxonomy of knowledge management software tools: origins and applications’, Evaluation and Programm Planning, Vol. 25, pp.183–190 (www.elsevier.com /locate/evalprogplan). Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.