Experiencing collaborative knowledge creation

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

Experiencing collaborative knowledge creation processes

Collaborative knowledge creation

Maria Jakubik HAAGA-HELIA University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland

5

Abstract Purpose – How people learn and create knowledge together through interactions in communities of practice (CoPs) is not fully understood. The purpose of this paper is to create and apply a model that could increase participants’ consciousness about knowledge creation processes. Design/methodology/approach – This four-month qualitative research was conducted as action research (AR). Data were collected through participative inquiry. Findings – Drawing on current developments in the knowledge creation theory of knowledge management (KM) and taking the collaborative learning approach (CLA), the model of collaborative knowledge creation process (CKCP) is constructed and applied. It brings structure into highly unstructured human processes of knowledge creation and helps participants to understand what they are doing and why. Research limitations/implications – It is difficult to assess the quality, validity and objectivity of the data as the researcher was a member of the community. Further research could address the role of diversity and social context, and the formation of the community identity. Practical implications – Members of this specific community (i.e. managers, teachers, students, and experts) reflected that the implemented way of learning helped them to realize the importance of interactions, exchanges, and collective experiences in community knowledge creation. Originality/value – Applying AR is rather exceptional in KM. However, it proved to be a good way of experiencing knowledge creation processes in communities. The novelty of the study is in contributing to the KM theory by opening the black box of community knowledge creation by demonstrating in practice how people interacted and created knowledge in a specific community. Keywords Communities, Action research, Knowledge creation Paper type Research paper

This paper in this format has not been submitted for publication elsewhere in English. However, a research report entitled Knowledge Creation in the Multi-Client Project (117 pages) was written by Maria Jakubik and published by Edita, Finland, in April 2006. The recent paper is based on the findings of the project (e.g. Figure 3 and Table II). However, here the focus is on knowledge creation processes through human interactions in a specific community. The author would like to thank the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation Finland for the financial support for writing this article, and Helia University of Business and Applied Sciences for supporting the implementation of this research and for allocating time for writing the research report. She would also like to thank 23 core members of the knowledge ecology – managers, teachers, students, and experts – without whom this research on collaborative knowledge creation would not have been possible. She is particularly thankful to Professor Jeff Hearn and Professor Karl-Erik Sveiby of the Management and Organization Department of the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, who helped her to improve the previous versions of her paper with their valuable comments. And finally, she would like to thank Professor Sharon Mavin, the European Editor of The Learning Organization, and the reviewer(s) for their encouraging and constructive feedback.

The Learning Organization Vol. 15 No. 1, 2008 pp. 5-25 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/09696470810842475

TLO 15,1

6

1. Introduction People in communities of practice (CoPs) within or across organizations have an increased potential for learning and developing knowledge together because of the low spatial and contextual distance between individuals (Doz and Santos, 1997). CoPs provide the social context for individual interactions. Knowledge develops through these interactions, and therefore the process of knowledge creation is best understood by focusing on these micro-level interactions between individuals. Knowledge creation and learning have become the most important source of sustainable competitive advantage in the knowledge economy (e.g. Barney, 1991; Boisot, 1995; Spender, 1996; Boisot, 1999; Shapiro and Varian, 1999; Teece, 2000; Barney and Hesterly, 2006). For businesses, it is essential that their employees create knowledge continuously, learn faster, and know more than others. “Knowledge creation” and “learning” are very similar, as they are both related to human cognition, and, consequently, it is common to use them as synonyms. However, there are differences between them. Learning includes the process of knowledge creation but it includes many other processes as well, such as knowledge destruction, re-learning, forgetting, solving problems, resolution of conflicts in the learning process, and dealing with power positions. In fact, theories of learning and knowledge creation have been developed in two different disciplines. “Knowledge creation” theory has been developed in knowledge management (KM) (e.g. Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000), and “learning” theory has been developed in education and in organization studies. This paper assumes that knowledge is embedded in human relations and it is created in a heuristic process when individuals interact in a social context. Senge and Scharmer (2001, p. 247) argue that “knowledge creation is an intensely human, messy process of imagination, invention and learning from mistakes, embedded in a web of human relationships”. Therefore, the role of CoPs, learning communities (LC), knowledge ecology (KE), groups, and teams as knowledge creation contexts are important. However, in the KM literature, knowledge creation in a community context is not fully explained and understood (e.g. Tsoukas, 2000). Therefore, there is a need for theoretical and empirical contributions. This research aims to contribute to the current development of KM by focusing on the micro-level of knowledge creation, on human interactions in a KE context (i.e. a combination of CoPs and LC[1]) of the multi-client project (MCP). This paper argues that taking the collaborative learning approach (CLA) to knowledge creation, when knowledge is created in a community context, helps to open the black box of community knowledge creation phenomenon. The paper is structured as follows: first, the theoretical background is outlined by focusing on the knowledge creation theory, the CLA, and organizational learning theory; then, the collaborative knowledge creation process (CKCP) is proposed. Second, the research design and implementation are presented by stating the research questions and the fundamental assumptions, by justifying the research strategy and data gathering approach selections, and by describing the interaction sessions, and their aims and participants. Third, the findings are presented, and finally the implications of the findings on theory, research, and practice are discussed, further research directions are proposed, and the novelty of this research is underlined.

2. Theoretical background and the proposed process This research is related to knowledge creation theory of KM and to learning theories of education (CLA) and organization studies (social learning theory in CoPs). Dealing with different theories is understandable, as learning and knowledge creation processes are closely related: the learning process is viewed as a source of new knowledge, and at the same time it is influenced by existing knowledge and prior knowledge. “Learning and knowledge are intertwined in an iterative, mutually reinforcing process. While learning (the process) produces new knowledge (content), the knowledge impacts future learning” (Vera and Crossan, 2003). The unity of content and process is important. However, the context (e.g. CoPs) as a third dimension is inseparable from learning and knowledge creation (Senge and Scharmer, 2001). Understanding human relationships during learning and knowledge creation practices, interactions among people in CoPs became important, as knowledge cannot be directly observed or studied. The study of the literature revealed three distinct phases of KM: (1) before the 1990s; (2) the early 1990s; and (3) the late 1990s (Scharmer, 2000, p. 42). The first phase of KM focused on the outcomes of knowledge creation, on knowledge of things, on data processing, and on information technology (IT). The goal was to observe, gather, store in databases, and manage existing knowledge in information systems as any other assets. In the second phase, KM focused on the organizational knowledge creation process (Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; von Krogh and Grand, 2000; von Krogh et al., 2000a, b; Senge and Scharmer, 2001). In the late 1990s, the focus turned to the sources and enabling conditions of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; von Krogh et al., 2000a). Nonaka et al.’s (2000) contribution to the knowledge creation theory development integrates the knowledge creation process (SECI) with the place (i.e. the concept of ba as a space for knowledge creation), and with the enabling conditions (i.e. leadership). This theory development step acknowledges the importance of context and enabling conditions within an organization. Knowledge does not emerge in a people-free vacuum, but rather in a social context. Knowledge is contextual: it is created in a particular context, and it has a meaning relevant to that specific context. This research was implemented in the MCP, in a combination of CoPs and a LC (Figure 1). Communities of practice as defined by Wenger and Snyder (2000) are: . . . groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for joint enterprise [. . .] People in communities of practice share their experiences and knowledge in free-flowing, creative ways that foster new approaches to problems (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, pp. 139-40).

They emphasize the organic, spontaneous, and informal nature of CoPs. Further characteristics of the CoPs are: . purpose – to develop the members’ capabilities, to build and exchange knowledge; . members – select themselves, it is voluntary to join the community; . motivation – is based on passion, commitment, and identification with the group’s expertise, and these hold together the community; and

Collaborative knowledge creation 7

TLO 15,1

8

Figure 1. Collaborative knowledge creation process .

duration – the community lives as long as there is interest in keeping it alive (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, p. 142).

In the MCP, the relationships with the companies had developed organically, in an informal way. CoPs have fluid boundaries, they develop organically, and they are characterized by a dialogical and constructive process, by reflexive learning (Melcrum, 2000, p. 82). In the recent phase of KM, starting from the early 2000s, the focus has shifted from knowledge creation within a firm to inter-firm collaborations, towards networks and CoPs (e.g. Wenger and Snyder, 2000), and toward knowledge creation in human interactions (i.e. micro-level) (e.g. Griffin, 2002; Stacey, 2004, 2005a, b; Shaw and Stacey, 2006). Grant and Baden-Fuller (2000) offer the knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. However, their explanation is heavily based on the asset view of knowledge, when knowledge can be “exported” and “imported” just like another commodity. The proposed theory of interfirm collaboration, by focusing on the firms’ knowledge domain and product domain, explains why firms collaborate, and when collaboration is superior to individual firms. However, the theory does not explain how knowledge is created in these collaborative relationships of firms. This study presupposes the relational perspective on knowledge (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) where knowledge is socially constructed in interactions among people, where people dialogue and act together in a specific context (e.g. CoPs) over time. The study assumes the social/situational approach to learning (e.g. Lave and Wenger, 1991; Salomon and Perkins, 1998), on interactions and observations in social contexts. There are four main orientations in learning theories: (1) the behaviorist; (2) the cognitive; (3) the humanistic; and (4) the social/situational. Learning happens in a relationship between people and their environment. One purpose of education is to encourage learning in communities of practice (CoPs) (Lave and Wenger, 1991). In social learning, an important role of the educator is to establish

the contexts in which socialization, participation, conversations, and learning can occur (Merriam and Caffarella, 1998, p. 138). Salomon and Perkins (1998) discuss the individual and social aspects of learning, and they argue that social learning cannot be understood without considering the individual learner’s practices in micro-level interactions. The main phases in micro-level knowledge construction are peer-to-peer dialogues, commenting, discussing, sharing, and reconceptualizing. Collaborative learning is social/situational learning where knowledge emerges through discussions, active dialogues among the learners while working in groups to achieve a shared understanding. It is an iterative process during which knowledge is constructed in learners’ minds operating within a social context. One key goal of collaborative learning is to enhance the critical thinking of the learners by questioning existing solutions and assumptions and by creating new ones. Learners take an active part in the learning process and they take responsibility for their own learning. Collaborative learning has different forms, for example investigative learning, progressive inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based learning (PBL). This study draws on the PBL process (Fagerholm and Helela¨, 2003, pp. 23-6) in developing and proposing the CKCP. In brief, there are three emerging themes in the reviewed literature: (1) shift from corporate-level knowledge creation to micro-level interactions, to human activities and practices; (2) shift from content toward context (CoPs) and enabling factors; and (3) shift from knowledge creation inside the firm to inter-firm collaborations (i.e. extended CoPs). Drawing on these three themes and on the CLA, the CKCP was developed (Figure 1) with the purpose of bringing an order into the “intensely human, messy process” of knowledge creation. The CKCP is an iterative process; it continues until the community is able to define an attractive, interesting and complex problem to deal with. Figure 1 indicates the proposed eight steps of knowledge creation in a community context, and it indicates the plan-act-observe-reflect spiral of action research (AR). Step 1 of the CKCP is the planning (or re-planning) step of AR, steps 2-7 are the acting and observing steps of AR, and finally, step 8 corresponds to the reflection step of AR. The eight steps of the CKCP are described in Table I. In order to see the viability of the proposed CKCP, knowledge creation research was carried out in the multi-client project (MCP) in the spring of 2005. 3. Research design and implementation After the research questions are restated, the fundamental assumptions and the decisions about the research philosophy, research strategy, and data collection methodology are justified, and finally, the implementation is presented with the description of the sessions, and their aims, participants, and analyses. The phenomenon of this research was “community knowledge creation”. The research questions were: (1) How do people interact and create knowledge in a specific community? (2) How do community members perceive the value of collaborative knowledge creation (CKC)? (3) How can the CLA enhance knowledge creation in a community?

Collaborative knowledge creation 9

TLO 15,1

Step

Description

1

Developing the knowledge ecology (KE) contexts (CoPs and LC) is an essential and critical step. The contexts need to be attractive for knowledge creation. People from different CoPs (e.g. managerial practices, teaching practices) voluntarily join the learning community and stay or leave freely. This step requires good personal networks, contacts, and an ability to present the benefits to the members. People form the community around an interesting and complex topic with the aim of increasing their knowledge about it (e.g. how to do internal branding) Defining the problem in a specific CoP means that it is essential to have a need for an improved understanding of a challenging issue. The problem could come from the managerial practice of a specific company (e.g. how to communicate a brand internally in company A) Presenting the problem to LC members means sharing “bad practices”. This is not a step for “nice talks”, for sharing “best practices”, success stories, but rather, this step requires openness, trust, motivation to learn from others, and humbleness Dialoguing about possible solution(s) requires communication skills, listening skills, argumentation, questioning, trust, empathy, willingness to help, and positive feelings Taking a critical approach, re-defining the problem, means challenging the assumptions, considering other views, questioning whether it is the real problem, helping the problem-provider to think differently Finding solution(s) together needs creativity, imagination, sharing experiences, empathy to think and feel together, and willingness to help. Solution(s) to the problem cannot always be found. However, asking additional questions could open up the complexity of the problem and could help the problem-provider to see the problem from a different angle, and to move forward. This step of “thinking together” facilitates better understanding of a complex issue Presenting the solution(s) or the challenging questions and taking actions means that the problem-provider brings back to the CoP the knowledge created in the LC. Empowered with the knowledge created in collaborative interactions, the problem-provider makes a change and improvement in practice Analyzing and synthesizing the CKCP helps the members to see the perceived values of knowledge created during their interactions. It gives them the opportunity for reflections and suggestions for improvement, as the process continues with another interesting problem provided by another person from another CoP

10 2 3 4 5 6

7

Table I. The eight steps of the collaborative knowledge creation process

8

“Becoming ontology” (Fonseca, 2002; Griffin, 2002; Boal et al., 2003; Chia, 2003; Stacey, 2005a, b; Shaw and Stacey, 2006) considers organizations as dynamic processes created by human beings and not as static, pre-given entities. Organizations are created by the sense making interactions of people (Mead); they are created in a meaning-making process of people (Weick, 2003). In this research, CoPs and LC are considered as “informal organizations” that are created by people and that are in constant flux, as their members are free to leave or join them. People having similar passion for a certain phenomenon (e.g. in the MCP, the common passion was to learn about internal branding) create social networks, enriching communities where knowledge can emerge. In this study, epistemology is understood as “the philosophy of learning” (Ryle, 1984, pp. 317-18). Based on experiences in PBL and when working together with teachers, managers, students, and other experts, a need for extended epistemology of knowledge was identified. Knowledge needs to be understood not only as an object, as an outcome of learning, but also as a heuristic process embedded in human actions and interactions. Spender (1999, p. viii) argues that there is a need for moving away “from conventional or monist epistemologies towards various kinds of epistemological

pluralism, meaning that researchers and managers must recognize the possibility of several different kinds of human knowledge’. In this research, this “epistemological pluralism” is accepted by assuming both knowledge as a commodity and knowledge as a process embedded in interactions in a community. Action research (AR) was selected as the research strategy and participative inquiry was chosen as the data collection methodology because they are recommended when the goal is not only to describe, understand, or to explain a problem but also to change it (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001). This research had the five core elements of an AR (Levin and Greenwood, 2001, p. 105): (1) it was context-bound, where real-life pragmatic business problems were defined in CoPs and delivered by managers to LC; (2) knowledge was created in collaborative communicative processes (e.g. workshops) among community members working side-by-side, and having dialogues; (3) high diversity (age, sex, background, occupation, nationality, goals, experience, language, etc.) of the LC members was an opportunity rather than a problem; (4) new meanings, new ideas, and new questions were constructed together, leading to action; and (5) the intangible outcomes (e.g. the experience of being, acting, thinking and feeling together) and the tangible outcomes (e.g. memos) of the project had increased the understanding of internal branding. Data were collected during the research through participative inquiry. The data collection tools were the followings: memoranda, value-maps, video and audio recording, observations, feedback, and reflections. One important tool for documenting the interactions between members of the community was value-mapping. Each session ended up with value mapping (i.e. HoloMappingw; Allee, 2003, pp. 183-5). The goal was to “make visible the invisible” knowledge flows during the CKCP (Figure 1) and in this way to increase the consciousness of knowledge creation. There were the following six steps in value-mapping: (1) Identifying the participants (e.g. students, teachers, managers). (2) Identifying and drawing the exchanges (e.g. examples from the company interviews). (3) Assessing perceived values and costs for each exchange (e.g. managers assessed students’ examples from the company interviews with the medium “2” perceived value and the effort giving these examples was assessed by students with medium cost). (4) Calculating the net perceived value created for each participant (e.g. net perceived value of the session for Company A managers was 4; see session 8 in Table II). (5) Calculating the total perceived value created during the session (e.g. the session presented in Figure 2 has created a total net perceived value of 10). (6) Analyzing the intensity of interactions between participants. Participants of the MCP were 31 (eight)[2] managers from four large Finnish companies, 14 (11) students and five (two) teachers from Helia University of Business

Collaborative knowledge creation 11

Table II. Net perceived value during the CKCP

Net perceived value by members

Step 7 (CoP)

Steps 3, 4, 5, 6 (LC)

Step 2 (CoP)

8 9 10

5 6 7

1 2 3 4 10

10 10

0 12 3 7 14

10

8 8 9

14

4 10 10

35 21 41

0 10 10 14

49 27 49 39 164

4

15 10 11

9

26

6 6 1

6 5 6

22 23 3 22

20

0 26 3

12 16 4

21 3 21 210

46

6 0 4

18 21 10

23 0 2 2 212

5

23 2 3

3

27

2 11 4

10

10

8

0 0 0

214 6 3

3 0 0 10

10 10 14

39 48 54

9 10 12 12

218

34

141

43

Members of the community Net perceived Companies Helia Experts value Session A B C D Sum Teachers Students Sum Leadership Branding Communication Sum By sessions Sum

12

Step

CKCP

TLO 15,1

Collaborative knowledge creation 13

Figure 2. Value map example

TLO 15,1

14

and Applied Sciences (Helia), and four (two) leadership, branding, and communication experts from three small Finnish companies. Altogether, the community had 54 (23) members. Diversity in the gender, age, educational, occupational and cultural (e.g. six different nationalities) background of participants characterized the MCP. Managers came from different areas, such as branding, human resources, sales, communication, and marketing. The four large companies operate in environmental measurement, insurance, electronics, and construction, and they were in different phases of their internal branding. Why do individuals join the community? Participants, besides their individual goals (e.g. doing research in branding, writing the Bachelor’s thesis), had a common goal to increase their knowledge of internal branding, and to develop a collective understanding of internal branding practices. This common passion toward internal branding was the connecting bond in this community, and it explains why this community could have been formed (Figure 1, step 1). The research was implemented in the MCP over a four-month period in the spring of 2005. The major goal was to learn together about “internal branding” by creating a community context of managers, teachers, students, and experts. This paper will not explain the “internal branding topic”, as the goal is to focus on the process, on how people create knowledge in a community. Therefore, the focus here is on the intensity and the perceived value of interactions among members of the community, and on understanding how the CLA facilitates community knowledge creation. Each interaction session had its own aim that emerged in CoPs during the problem definition step. The CKCP (Figure 1) is an iterative process typical for AR. There were four iterations in the MCP, meaning that step 2 was repeated four times, once in each company. During the problem definition steps, three themes emerged: (1) branding and strategy; (2) branding and collaboration; and (3) branding and leadership. These emerging themes became the aims of the workshops. There were three full-day workshops (steps 3-6) with the attendance of all community members, and step 7 was repeated three times. The CKCP took place in two different contexts: intra-organizational (i.e. CoPs) and inter-organizational (i.e. LC) contexts (Figure 1). On one hand, the CoPs’ context allowed us to collect information about each company, explore their internal branding process, and to grasp the potential problems (Figure 1, step 2), to share the results, to have an impact or possible change in managerial practices (Figure 1, step 7), and to receive direct feedback and reflections from the community members (Figure 1, step 8). On the other hand, the LC context (Figure 1, steps 3-6) allowed knowledge creation in a wider context. In this context, participants perceived the knowledge creation as especially valuable, because they appreciated the opportunity to learn from each other. One of the students reflected: The conversation was beneficial; not only to students but also to business people from different fields, as they learned from each other.

In the LC context, managers shared their concerns, and they could focus on the issues instead of presenting an impressive, “no-problem” picture about the company. As one manager reflected at the end of the project, “it was a good forum to share bad

experiences, because companies usually share only their success stories”. The MCP provided the KE context where knowledge was created in CoPs and LCs. One benefit of the MCP compared with traditional training courses was that it managed to link different knowledge creation contexts, as it linked practice with theory. Therefore, knowledge had not to be “transferred” to work practices, as it was created in work practices.

Collaborative knowledge creation 15

4. Findings In this part of the paper, findings related to the three research questions are presented. 4.1 How do people interact and create knowledge in a specific community? To answer this research question, the interactions identified on ten value maps (Figure 3) were analyzed. There were 214 interactions identified during the ten sessions. Managers from all companies indicated that the number of inflow exchanges was higher than that of the outflow exchanges[3]. Company C provided highest outflow exchanges (29). The activity of teachers and students was almost at the same level (45 and 49). The total number of interactions supplied by the companies (90) was very close to that of Helia (94). While managers received more exchanges than they supplied, teachers, students, and experts (with the exception of the communication expert) supplied more exchanges than they received. These figures could indicate who the knowledge receivers and providers are in the community. The total number of interactions was the highest (127) in the LC context (sessions 5-7). The reasons could be that the community members spent more time together, and there were more people attending the LC sessions (5-7) than the CoP sessions (1-4 and 8-10). 4.2 How do community members perceive the value of CKC? Table II provides a summary of net perceived values[4] at the sessions by community members. From Table II, it can be assumed that companies benefited the most (164), then Helia (46), and finally the experts (8). However, the branding expert felt that he was a value-contributor (2 7) to the CKCP. This is understandable, as he attended only a few sessions with a limited time. Comparing the four companies, it can be concluded that Companies C and A benefited the most (49 each) and Company D (39) benefited the next. Company B’s perceived net value (27) stayed at the lowest level. The reason why Company B managers felt this way could be related to their limited attendance in the dialogues in LC sessions. Comparing sessions in the CoP contexts (e.g. 1-3 and 8-10), it can be concluded that they created approximately the same values (31 and 34). As it was expected, the full-day workshops (sessions 5-7) created the highest net perceived value (141). They were the longest sessions community members spent together, as they created knowledge in an inter-organizational context (LC). The increasing trend (39, 48, and 54) in net perceived values could be explained by time spent together, increased trust, active attendance, and getting familiar with the value mapping method. Trust developed and increased between the members by the time spent together. Session 7 had the highest net perceived value (54), probably because it focused on two companies and it had the highest attendance. 4.3 How can the CLA enhance knowledge creation in a community? The data collected through observations, feedback, and reflections demonstrated that the proposed CKCP facilitated knowledge creation by providing a clear structure to

TLO 15,1

16

Figure 3. Interactions during the CKCP

each session. The value of the CKCP was seen as increasing the consciousness during the interactions in the CoPs and LCs. The findings of observations demonstrated the dynamics of collaborative knowledge creation. Two teachers who were not involved in the project performed the role of observers during sessions 5 and 6. The findings of session 5 observations showed the highest activities in such criteria as “drawing in others”; “brainstorming”; and “offering positive ideas”. The three dominating criteria of session 6 were “offering positive ideas”; “brainstorming”; and “taking initiative”. An interesting result of observations was that, in session 6, the criteria “offering positive ideas” became the first in ranking. This positive attitude could indicate an increased level of trust among the participants, enhancing collaborative knowledge creation. Feedback was collected after each session of the LC context. Companies described their own contributions as “active, provocative, and seeking to learn to look at things in a new way”. Participants from Helia felt that they contributed with their external views to the business problems; however, one person reflected that she was not committed to the project. The contribution of students and teachers to the process was assessed by the companies as “helpful, good, interesting, and students were well-prepared and teachers easily available”. Regarding learning and new knowledge, company participants felt they learned about new models, and they indicated that the students’ surveys confirmed their perceptions of the case company, and it was new for them to learn that companies had similar situations. They felt that they increased their knowledge of branding, and of the situation of the brand in a knowledge management context, and they gained different points of view, which facilitated thinking. However, there was one person who felt that the brand was still unclear to her (this was the same person who indicated that she was not committed to the MCP). Some of the participants in their suggestions and assessment indicated their dissatisfaction with the level of discussions, and they expressed their wish for shorter group discussions, better participation from companies, and avoiding dominance of some individuals during the discussions. They suggested that focusing only on one company at a time could have deepened the discussions. Reflections concerning the MCP were collected after six months from the last session. Reflections emerged around four issues: (1) PBL approach, value mapping tool; (2) the CKCP and the MCP; (3) suggestions for improvements; and (4) feelings. The expressions used regarding the PBL approach and the value mapping were as follows: . creative; . quick; . speeds up concentration on the essence; . fruitful; . helpful; . interesting; . exceeded the expectations;

Collaborative knowledge creation 17

TLO 15,1

. .

PBL had to be adapted; and the value mapping provided information to participants about their contribution to others.

Company participants commented:

18

. . . the impression I got is that the method applied (i.e. PBL, added by the author) provides quite a creative way to solve difficult and somewhat abstract problems . . . the method of Value Network proved to be an interesting way to visualize the connections, inputs and outputs between teachers, students and company members.

There were both positive (e.g. really interesting; useful; well-operating process; amazing how seriously the companies took it; valuable; ideal way to cooperate; all parties seem to profit; beneficial not only to students but to business people as well; we learned from each other; vivid conversations; people enthusiastically shared their experiences) and negative (e.g. some students did not speak at all; one student was dominating; started slowly as the participants were not familiar with PBL) comments regarding the process and participation. The MCP was characterized as “a brave experiment; important; it supported collaborative learning; it was a good forum to share ‘bad experiences’, not only the success stories and to ask stupid questions”. One participant felt that “there is a need to step out from formal classrooms to the world that is messy and in constant flux”. Managers’ comments about the process, for example, were: I would say that this co-operation in general was really interesting and useful as other companies’ practices and problems provoked ideas and thoughts in my daily work . . . . . . . the process of defining the problem, writing the triggers, commenting them and recording the sessions and combining the theory, and the data and information from interviews was a process operating quite well after all.

Suggestions for improvements are: . to have a timekeeper in the discussions; . to do better scheduling; . to get students involved for a longer period; . to report about the results to all companies; . to get full participation from all companies; and . better integrate the sessions with managerial practices. As one company member commented: I was left wanting more information on the students’ results concerning other companies.

Feelings varied from positive (being excited; enjoyed the experience; a positive experience; different, new way; feelings of togetherness; relaxed; knowledgeable students and teachers) through neutral (no critical words) to negative feelings (being exhausted; worried; uncertainty involved; inspiring people took a lot of energy; stressful). One manager’s negative feelings concerning another person were expressed this way:

I found X [name deleted by the author] controversial. X claimed that this was to challenge people’s established concepts, which in theory is acceptable, but sometimes X reacted so alarmingly that a shyer or weaker person would relinquish his idea for the sake of avoiding confrontation. This can ruin a conversation.

In brief, the findings demonstrated how the CLA, the value mapping tool, and the applied CKCP (Figure 1) facilitated the micro-level interactions among people. 5. Discussion In this concluding part, first the gap in the literature is readdressed and the CKCP (Figure 1) is revisited. Then, the implications of the findings on theory, research and practice are discussed, and finally the novelty of the research is articulated. The literature review showed shifts in interests towards knowledge creation at the micro-level, contexts and enabling conditions, and inter-firm collaborations. It also became evident that the community knowledge creation process is not yet fully understood and explained. Therefore, this research sought to contribute to the current development of KM by focusing on the micro-level of knowledge creation, on human interactions in a community context. It was proposed that KM as a young discipline could benefit from learning theories and from AR experiences of educational research, and therefore, based on the collaborative learning approach and action research, the CKCP (Figure 1 and Table I) was developed and applied in a specific community to find out how people create knowledge together. The proposed process is an iterative process and its steps were related to the AR steps (Figure 1). As one participant has commented, the approach provided a “creative way to solve difficult and somewhat abstract problems”. The CKCP increased the participants’ consciousness of the process of knowledge creation. Value mapping was a good tool to make visible the intensity, the content and the perceived values of mainly intangible interactions. The findings demonstrated the link between the intensity and the perceived values of interactions: e.g. in this specific community, companies with the highest number of interactions (Table I) received the highest net perceived value (Table II). The number of interactions and the perceived values were highest in the LC context (Figure 3 and Table II) where the community had the most diversity in its members. Time spent together, trust, familiarity with the learning approach and the value mapping tool also increased the number of interactions. Findings from reflections on feelings were interesting, as, among the many positive comments, they also indicated the “downside of communities” (Wenger et al., 2002, pp. 139-59): how individuals and leadership problems can become an obstacle to knowledge creation. Wenger et al. (2002) argue that: The term of community has positive connotations for most people. It is a “warm” term that conjures images of harmony. [. . .] However, communities of practice are not havens of peace or unbounded goodwill. [. . .] They have their share of conflicts, jealousies, and intrigues (p. 144).

The research findings have implications on theory development, further research, and practice. Firstly, it could be argued that the research has a modest contribution to KM theory development. However, the approach applied in this research gave a different view on the highly unstructured processes of community knowledge creation by focusing on human micro-level interactions instead of focusing on conversion steps between tacit and explicit knowledge as the knowledge creation theory of KM (Nonaka

Collaborative knowledge creation 19

TLO 15,1

20

and Takeuchi, 1995). The consciousness of community members was increased by visualizing the invisible exchanges between them by using value mapping (Allee, 2003) as a tool and by applying the CLA-based CKCP in a community context. Secondly, the implications of the findings on further research are that the action research strategy proved to be a good decision for experiencing the processes of knowledge creation. However, the researcher being member of the community and participating in the interactions make the findings subjective. The relationship of the researcher with other members of the community was collaborative[5], because: . there was a shared commitment to the necessity for the research in internal branding and the knowledge creation process; . the research agenda concerned topics of our mutual concern; . the control over the research processes was equally shared and members acted as colleagues during the implementation process; . the outcomes were meaningful to participants in professional terms; and . there was an open communication between participants. The limitations of this research could come from many other sources as well: from the selection of the subject, from ignoring some important theory, from selecting the place and location of the implementation, from timing of the sessions, and from analyzing the data. Future studies, in addition to the ideas presented in this paper, could look at the micro-level interactions (e.g. Figure 3 and Table II) and discover emerging patterns in these interactions. By focusing on understanding the frequency, pattern, and quality of these interactions, further studies could contribute to the development of the collaborative knowledge creation theory. One could, for example, examine the impact of the diversity of community members on knowledge creation, or what kind of diversity enhances the knowledge creation. Hackman (2004) argues that diversity in knowledge base, skills, different perspectives, experiences, views, and having the “right mix” of personalities are important in collaborative knowledge creation. Additionally, one could examine in more detail the dynamism, the development of the community identity, and its impact on knowledge creation. In brief, further research could scrutinize the institutional consequences of the micro-level interactions, the role of diversity and contexts, and the development of the community identity during interactions. Furthermore, feelings during the community knowledge creation process and the “downside of community” phenomenon could be interesting research areas. Thirdly, the findings indicated changes in participants’ practices, changes in their “working lives” (Shaw and Stacey, 2006), and changes in their thinking. Teachers indicated that they experienced the power of working together with students and managers on “real-world” problems. Students reported that they experienced the complexity of managerial work, and that being part of this community had a positive impact on their motivation. Managers reflected that having dialogues with other organizations and students was valuable for them. During the project, experts became aware of the current problems and needs of other companies. Additionally, participants of the CoPs realized that individual and organizational knowledge are closely related, and that organizational knowledge does not exist without individual knowledge and vice versa. Organizational knowledge is more than the sum of the knowledge of the individuals working for the organization (Kay, 1993). When Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001, p. 983) define organizational knowledge, they emphasize the role of a particular context (i.e. CoPs) and the development of collective

understandings through collective experiences. They do not separate individual and collective; rather, they think about them as they have a “both and” relationship. Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) draw on earlier studies by Wittgenstein (1958), Penrose (1959), Polanyi (1975), Wenger (1998), Blackler (1995), and Collins (1992). This study emphasizes the collective experience that community members had during four months. Experiencing and then reflecting (Table I, step 8) on the experiences are key processes in knowledge creation (Figure 1). In this specific community, knowledge was created by “epistemologizing one’s ontology”, i.e. by raising the experience to a conscious level by facilitating the process with the CKCP as a framework. Collective understanding among participants of internal branding has developed through collective experiences. Branding issues were not the focus of this research. Nevertheless, it needs to be mentioned how community members’ thinking has converged during the process and how they started to agree that companies need to change their brand thinking. “Brand” needs to be understood more like a process and not only as an asset of the company. Collective understanding has developed, and they started to agree that earlier “brand” was used for external communication purposes towards customers, but today there is an urgent need to understand branding as an internal process and to realize that, without a strong company-wide understanding and living through the brand, the companies’ chances to succeed are limited. The originality of this research lies in its approach, i.e. in combining the CLA and AR in developing and then applying the collaborative process of knowledge creation (Figure 1) in KM research. AR in KM is relatively rare but quite a common tradition in educational research (McNiff, 1997, pp. 10-20). One novelty of this research is to apply educational theories and research experience in KM. Additionally, using value mapping as a tool in action research is original. AR as a methodological approach is set to intervene in complex social situations (i.e. community knowledge creation) for achieving improvements and generating knowledge, and improving the practices of participants. It proved to be an appropriate approach, as the goal was to get out where the people are and to understand how they interact, how they create knowledge together. There is a difference between doing research about people and doing research with people, knowledge about the world and knowing-in-the-world. Barnett (2000, p. 35) asks a valid question: “Is knowing essentially epistemological or ontological in character: is it cognitive or has it much more to do with one’s state of being-in-the-world?”. The findings of this research have demonstrated that doing research with people (i.e. AR) and “knowing-in-the-world” (i.e. community context) could help researchers to close the gap and to better understand the social-relational view of knowledge creation. Furthermore, as Scarbrough et al. (2005) concluded, based on a qualitative analysis of 27 articles in the period 1990-2000, the discourses in the KM literature were highly colonized by the information systems community and by the tools of information technology. Therefore, this research could be considered as a contribution to the neglected human discourse in KM literature. Notes 1. The different contexts and their relationships are presented in Figure 1 and described in the “Implementation” part of this paper. 2. Core members of the community are shown in parentheses. 3. The out/in ratios were: A, 25/38; B, 20/22; C, 29/31; D, 16/23.

Collaborative knowledge creation 21

TLO 15,1

22

4. Perceived values were assessed as: low (1), medium (2), and high (3). The net perceived value was calculated for each community member as total perceived value received minus total perceived value given to others. 5. “Laboro” in Latin means to work; “collaboro” means working together on the same thing. The collaborative relationship in pedagogical research has five characteristics: (1) there is a shared commitment to the necessity for the research; (2) the research agenda concerns topics of mutual concern; (3) control over the research processes is also equally shared; (4) outcomes are of equal value to all participants in professional terms; and (5) fairness informs matters of justice amongst participants (Tripp, 1992). References Allee, V. (2003), The Future of Knowledge, Increasing Prosperity through Value Networks, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. Barnett, R. (2000), Realizing the University: In an Age of Supercomplexity, Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press, Buckingham. Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120. Barney, J.B. and Hesterly, W.S. (2006), Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, Pearson, Harlow. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Blackler, F. (1995), “Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1021-46. Boal, K.B., Hunt, J.G. and Jaros, S.J. (2003), “Order is free: on the ontological status of organizations”, in Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (Eds), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 84-97. Boisot, M.H. (1995), Information Space: Framework for Learning in Organizations, Institutions and Culture, Routledge, London and New York, NY. Boisot, M.H. (1999), Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford (first published 1998). Chia, R. (2003), “Ontology: organization as ‘world-making’”, in Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (Eds), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 98-113. Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation, Sage Publications, London. Collins, M. (1992), Artificial Experts: Social Knowledge and Intelligent Machines, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Doz, Y. and Santos, J.F.P. (1997), “On the management of knowledge: from the transparency of collocation and co-setting to the quandary of dispersion and differentiation”, INSEAD Working Paper Series, Vol. 97/119/SM, INSEAD, Fontainebleau. Fagerholm, H. and Helela¨, M. (2003), Handbook for Transforming a BBA Program in International Business into a Problem-Based Learning Curriculum Case: Liibba Program at Helia, Helian julkaisusarja A: 8, Helia University, Helsinki. Fonseca, J. (2002), Complexity and Innovation in Organizations, Routledge, London. Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2000), “Knowledge and economic organization: an application to the analysis in interfirm collaboration”, in von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (Eds), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, Macmillan, London, pp. 113-15.

Griffin, D. (2002), The Emergence of Leadership: Linking Self-Organization and Ethics, Routledge, London. Hackman, J.R. (2004), “Leading teams”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 84-8. Kay, J. (1993), The Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lave, J. and Wenger, E.C. (1991), Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Levin, M. and Greenwood, D. (2001), “Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform universities into learning communities”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research, Participative Inquiry & Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 103-13. McNiff, J. (1997), Action Research. Principles and Practice, Routledge, London (first published 1988, Macmillan Education, London). Melcrum (2000), “Teams and communities of practice”, available at: www.melcrum.com/ know_articles/COPs_teams.htm (accessed 17 November 2005). Merriam, S.B. and Caffarella, R.S. (1998), Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (first published 1991). Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge creating company”, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 96-104. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), “The concept of ‘ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P. and Senoo, D. (2000), “Integrated IT systems to capitalize on market knowledge”, in von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (Eds), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, Macmillan, London, pp. 89-109. Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Blackwell, Oxford. Polanyi, M. (1975), “Personal knowledge”, in Polanyi, M. and Prosch, H. (Eds), Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 22-45. Ryle, G. (1984), The Concept of Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (first published 1949). Salomon, G. and Perkins, D.N. (1998), “Individual and social aspects of learning”, Review of Research in Education, Vol. 23, pp. 1-24. Scarbrough, H., Robertson, M. and Swan, J. (2005), “Professional media and management fashion: the case of knowledge management”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 197-208. Scharmer, O.C. (2000), “Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge”, in von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (Eds), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, Macmillan, London, pp. 36-60. Senge, P. and Scharmer, O. (2001), “Community action research: learning as a community of practitioners, consultants and researchers”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research, Participative Inquiry & Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 238.

Collaborative knowledge creation 23

TLO 15,1

24

Shapiro, C. and Varian, H.R. (1999), Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Shaw, P. and Stacey, R. (Eds) (2006), Experiencing Risk, Spontaneity and Improvisation in Organizational Change: Working Live, Routledge, London. Spender, J.C. (1996), “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62. Spender, J.-C. (1999), “Foreword”, in Boisot, M.A. (Ed.), Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Stacey, R.D. (2004), Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation, Routledge, London (first published 2001),. Stacey, R. (2005a), “The emergence of knowledge in organizations”, handout at the International Forum “Towards Living Organisations”, Lifelong Learning Institute Dipoli, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, 4 April. Stacey, R. (Ed.) (2005b), Experiencing Emergence in Organizations: Local Interaction and the Emergence of Global Pattern, Routledge, London. Teece, D.J. (2000), Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy Dimensions, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Tripp, D. (1992), “Critical theory and educational research”, Issues in Educational Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 13-23. Tsoukas, H. (2000), “On organizational knowledge and its management: an ethnographic investigation”, in Koski, J.T. and Marttila, S. (Eds), Conference on Knowledge and Innovation, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Center for Knowledge and Innovation Research, Helsinki, May 25-26, 2000, pp. 12-30. Tsoukas, H. and Vladimirou, E. (2001), “What is organizational knowledge?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7. Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2003), “Organizational learning and knowledge management: toward an integrative framework”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 122-42. von Krogh, G. and Grand, S. (2000), “Justification in knowledge creation: dominant logic in management discourses”, in von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (Eds), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, Macmillan, London, pp. 13-35. von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000a), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, Oxford. von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (2000b), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, Macmillan, London. Weick, K.E. (2003), “Enacting an environment: the infrastructure of organizing”, in Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (Eds), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 184-94. Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wenger, E.C. and Snyder, W.M. (2000), “Communities of practice: the organizational frontier”, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 139-45. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W.M. (2002), A Guide to Managing Knowledge: Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Wittgenstein, L. (1958), Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, Oxford.

Further reading Kelemen, M. and Hassard, J. (2003), “Paradigm plurality: exploring past, present, and future trends”, in Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (Eds), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 73-82. Mead, G.H. (1967) in Morris, C.W. (Ed.), Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL (first published 1934). O’Donnell, D., Porter, G., McGuire, D., Garavan, T.N., Heffernan, M. and Cleary, P. (2003), “Creating intellectual capital: a Habermasian community of practice (CoP) introduction”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27 Nos 2-4, pp. 80-7. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds) (2001), Handbook of Action Research, Participative Inquiry & Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (Eds) (2003), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Blackwell, Oxford. Corresponding author Maria Jakubik can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Collaborative knowledge creation 25