Difference between revisions of "Community of practice"

Revision as of 09:58, 5 July 2013 (view source) Tellervo (Talk | contribs) (→‎Definition) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 16:21, 28 January 2016 (view source) Karseka (Talk | contribs)
(76 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{Clustering stage}}	+	<!--
		+	{{JohnD}}
−	==Definition==	+	{{Tidy3}},
−	{{PAGENAME}} is/are {{ {{PAGENAME}} }}	+	{{Consolidation stage}},
−	'''Source: [[Comparative Analysis of Methods and Tools for Nuclear Knowledge Preservation]]'''	+	{{Priority}},
		+	-->
−	'''Source: [[Process oriented knowledge management]]'''	+	==Definition==
−	== Summary==	+	{{ {{PAGENAME}} }}
−	One paragaph summary which summarises the main ideas of the article.	+	== Description ==
−		+
−	== Description 1 ==	+
	Community of practice (CoP) is a network of people who work on similar processes or in		Community of practice (CoP) is a network of people who work on similar processes or in
−	similar disciplines, and who come together to develop and share their knowledge in that field	+	similar disciplines, and who come together to develop and [[Sharing|share]] their knowledge in that field
−	for the benefit of both themselves and their organization. The original thoughts behind the	+	for the benefit of both themselves and their organization.
		+	Communities of practice may be created formally or informally, and they can interact online or in person. In a less-formal context, they are  sometimes referred to as Communities of interest. An example in the nuclear industry is the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Community of Practice.
		+
		+
		+
		+	The original thoughts behind the
	concept of a CoP are generally attributed to E. Wenger, and the techniques and benefits are		concept of a CoP are generally attributed to E. Wenger, and the techniques and benefits are
−	described in his book [8].	+	described in his book [10].
		+
	CoPs are generally self-organizing and usually emerge naturally but need management		CoPs are generally self-organizing and usually emerge naturally but need management
	commitment to get started and continue working effectively. They typically exist from the		commitment to get started and continue working effectively. They typically exist from the
	recognition of a specific need or problem and are particularly important in realising benefits		recognition of a specific need or problem and are particularly important in realising benefits
	in R&D organizations through increased innovation and collaboration.		in R&D organizations through increased innovation and collaboration.
		+
	A CoP provides an environment (face-to-face and/or virtual) to connect people and encourage		A CoP provides an environment (face-to-face and/or virtual) to connect people and encourage
	the sharing of new ideas, developments and strategies. This environment encourages faster		the sharing of new ideas, developments and strategies. This environment encourages faster
Line 31:		Line 38:
	organizations overcome the challenges of geographical boundaries.		organizations overcome the challenges of geographical boundaries.
		+	===Communities of practice in the literature===
		+	Within the KM literature there are numerous definitions for CoP, but most definitions highlight the features first set out by Etiene Wenger the originator of the concept of Communities of Practice, along with anthropologist Jean Lave. He defined the term Communities of Practice as:-
−	'''Source:'''	+	'''''"Groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly."<nowiki>[</nowiki>1<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''''
−	[[Knowledge Management for Nuclear Research and Development Organizations]]	+
−	==Description 2==	+
−	===CoP background and history;===	+	In a further text Wenger and others go on to describe CoP as:-
−	In this Appendix the development and methods of US communities of practice (CoP) are presented covering a period of time of about 1999–2008 (see Ref. [22]).	+
−	NEI originally conceived the concept of communities of practice as part of a global trend in CoPs beginning about 1999. NEI’s definition of a CoP is:	+
−	An effective new organizational form, called a community of practice, has emerged that promises to capitalize on existing industry structures and expand opportunities for knowledge sharing, learning, and change management. Communities of practice are groups of people who come together to share and to learn from one another face-to-face and virtually. They are bound together by shared expertise and passion in a body of knowledge and are driven by a desire and need to share problems, experience, insights, templates, tools and best practices.	+
−	===Description===	+
−	A community of practice as an industry peer group of experts in a business process or sub-process defined in the SNPM. The group serves as the ‘owner’ of a particular process or sub-process, managing the solution of issues for the industry in that area. A sample of responsibilities performed or supported by a CoP is listed below:	+
−	— Develop, approve and adjust process Key Performance Indicators;	+
−	— Recommend adjustments to cost definitions in the SNPM;	+
−	— Support and guide industry management of strategic business process issues;	+
−	— Agree on and administer appropriate industry projects for their process area;	+
−	— Integrate, coordinate and provide guidance to special issue group activities to gain synergies on related industry process issues;	+
−	— Determine future benchmarking needs.	+
−	===General criteria for assessing the business maturity of CoPs;===	+
−	A typical community of practice has taken about six months to become chartered and operational and at about the one-year-point the organization is normally capable of developing and implementing improvement projects. Assessment of full capabilities can be determined based on the following attributes, capabilities and work products:	+
−	— The formation of a leadership or steering team;	+
−	— An agreed upon Community of Practice charter describing process scope, how the team will work together and their focus areas;	+
−	— Publication of a documented process description, typically in ‘AP-XXX’ format containing:	+
−	• Process generic steps and logic maintained in at least three hierarchical levels;	+
−	• A set of definitions of industry-wide performance indicators;	+
−	• A set of fully developed process cost definitions for each sub-process;	+
−	— Management of a set of performance improvement projects that are coordinated with interfacing CoPs through the NAM CoP as required;	+
−	— Ability to assist in the process orientation of new CoP members;	+
−	— When applicable, coordinate and align the activities of related special issue groups.	+
−	Achievement of all the above items has typically taken about three years. A table of CoP characteristics is summarized in Table 4.	+
−	===Community of practice approach===	+
−	The details concerning how CoPs appeared are best explained as part of the ‘Benchmarking loop’ discussed in article "[[Benchmarking]]"	+
−	===Factors leading to formation of CoPs===	+	''''' "an informal group of peers, sharing ideas, insight, information and help about a topic they are deeply, sometimes passionately, interested in." <nowiki>[</nowiki>2<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''''
−	Several factors are considered when considering the formation of a CoP. Foremost is the goal of identifying the most effective collection of industry professionals who can manage the business aspects of the process. They must be subject matter experts and they must be will to accept some responsibility for creating and maintaining their body of knowledge. They must also be willing to work within the system described by the SNPM to facilitate their enabling processes or process interfaces to optimize the overall business of nuclear electricity generation. Industry sponsorship is also an important factor to convince potential members of the benefits of CoPs.	+
−	All CoPs were formed in one of the following ways:	+
−	— An existing SIG became the CoP as a result of exposure to the benchmarking programme;	+
−	— CoP was similarly formed by the adding together of one or more SIGs;	+
−	— CoP was formed by like-minded subject matter experts as a result of attending a benchmarking workshop.	+
−	===Industry process ownership===	+
−	About 1994, INPO began a project to develop improved process descriptions for the ‘Advanced plant’ (AP). A series of the AP documents were drafted by INPO staff and reviewed by industry peer subject matter experts. These documents were envisioned to become part of a utility’s ‘Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) Toolkit’. Since new nuclear plants ‘had not yet arrived’, the project was closed in 1997, but efforts continued to further develop some APs based on demand from INPO members companies. The best example of this is AP-928, INPO Work Management Process Description.	+
−	Some utilities embraced the idea of improved industry process and used the AP documents series as a template starting point. Therefore some immediate benefits were achieved about 1995–1998 as this was also the time when formal NEI benchmarking projects began to provide Best Practices for consideration.	+
−	Upon issuance of the SNPM Rev.0 in 1998, the concept of industry process ownership resided with INPO. However several of the ‘dormant’ APs described processes that were not part of INPO’s normal plant evaluation or assistance processes. This effectively had taken the processes ‘off the radar screen’.	+
−	After taking the economic points of contact benchmarking poll in 1999, NEI worked with INPO to ‘transfer’ the following APs to NEI in 2001:	+
−	— AP-902 – waste services;	+
−	— AP-907 – processes and procedures;	+
−	— AP-908 – materials and services.	+
−	NEI was also assumed to be the industry process sponsor for all support services processes such as:	+
−	— Information technology;	+
−	— Business services;	+
−	— Human resources;	+
−	— All loss prevention processes (LP002 shared with INPO);	+
−	— Nuclear fuel process.	+
−	NEI began the practice of labelling industry process ownership in the SNPM, Rev.1.	+
−	Ongoing involvement by CoPs offered several advantages not seen in other industries:	+
−	— Knowledge management captured within:	+
−	• Process description;	+
−	• Key performance measures;	+
−	— Integration of process steps by consensus with interfacing CoPs; and	+
−	— Completion of high-value projects for the industry.	+
−	===Sustaining factors===	+
−	CoPs become expert managers of knowledge if, after formation, they can establish some sustaining activities that demonstrate value to the industry. There are several factors that tend to sustain these groups over time. These include:	+
−	— Executive sponsorship;	+
−	— Industry-level sponsorship (NEI, INPO, EPRI);	+
−	— Availability of 5–7 members who are willing to be CoP leaders;	+
−	— Recognized products and services;	+
−	— Mentorship role for new members;	+
−	— Creating value based on number of meetings and location, cost of meetings;	+
−	— Achieving a balance between improvement projects established and the number of members available who are able to work on those projects, such that the total amount of work required is available from the members.	+
−	===Integration of process knowledge and collection of best practices===	+
−	As a result of deregulation, the benchmarking programmes and other safety and efficiency drivers, all utilities began to seek and implement best practices wherever possible beginning about 1992. Because of the large number of utility peer visits, INPO evaluations, NRC inspections and consulting engagements conducted, it is difficult to say exactly when, where and how many of these best practices occurred. However these forces were certainly aided by the INPO sharing principle and the NEI benchmarking programme. This can be seen by the overall reduction of O&M costs in progressive fashion beginning about 1997 and continuing until present day (see Fig. 23).	+
		+	Wenger elaborates that CoP have three essential characteristics: a knowledge domain; secondly a community of people who care about the domain be it through a shared set of problems or desire to learn; and thirdly a shared practice that is documented and shared within the community, including policies, operating principles and reference documents.  Wenger <nowiki>[</nowiki>3<nowiki>]</nowiki> also distinguishes CoP from other forms of organisational collaborative groups, such as formal working groups and project teams.  The essence of CoP is that their purpose is around developing the capabilities of, and exchanging knowledge between, its members; a membership which is self-selected or voluntary.
−	[[File:US O&M cost trends (NEI-2007).png|thumb|right|500px|FIG. 23.  US O&M cost trends (NEI-2007)]]	+	Emphasising the informal nature of CoP McDermott notes that:-
−	===Role of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems===	+	'''''"membership of is often voluntary and, as community members share ideas and information, they deepen their knowledge of each other as they increase their knowledge of the topic and sense of connection." <nowiki>[</nowiki>4<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''''
−	Commercial computer software for managing maintenance work and integrating the supply chain began to appear about 1990. Many utilities also internally developed corporate versions for accomplishing this work or deployed a series of software programs with assigned functions. Over the next ten years best practices were captured and integrated into several large product offerings that became a ‘standard’ for some US fleets. While the larger software products offered more capabilities, there were several potential drawbacks to trusting so much of the business to a single tool such as:	+
−	— Higher product cost;	+
−	— Cost and success in implementing the new software and managing the change with employees;	+
−	— Cost to customize the software for company-specific purposes;	+
−	— Challenge of integrating other software tools into the overall portfolio.	+
−	These issues in part gave rise to the NITSL sponsorship of the Computer Software Applications Benchmarking Project in 2003.	+
−	===Role of third party software solutions===	+
−	When a new software capability is created, it usually is introduced as a ‘Third party’ (not ERP product and not an existing utility product). Good examples of this are programs that offer capability for monitoring or analysing equipment performance as part of the new equipment reliability process. As these programs become accepted they should be integrated with the ERP software platform or become part of the ERP platform in a new ‘release’.	+
−	The ability to integrate third party solutions is an important capability for the utility in order to drive improvement as well as to maintain flexibility in overall operations.	+
−	===Custom solutions===	+
−	Custom software solutions began to disappear at an increased rate about 2000, as ERP solutions became more robust and as mergers and plant acquisitions allowed nuclear fleets to expand in size. Larger fleets deploying standard processes were more cost effective to manage. By 2006, most fleets operated with one of four ‘standard’ ERP systems. By 2010 most, if not all customized solutions should be a thing of the past.	+
−	===Termination of active industry programme===	+
−	About 2004, industry executives were forced to reconsider industry priorities as several important issues began to demand a greater share of ‘issue management budgets’. Some of these issues included higher increased regulatory attention for security, development of materials degradation strategies and improving nuclear fuel reliability.	+
−	As a result NEI ‘Declared Victory’ for the benchmarking programme and empowered further follow-up to be passed on to CoPs.	+
−	===CoP and SIGs===	+
−	In 2005, the industry conducted a thorough review of the function and value of all SIGs (including CoPs). This initiative was led by a working group of Chief Nuclear Officers with dedicated support from NEI, INPO and EPRI as required. Overall categories were established for the review and these were referred to as ‘topical areas’. The industry manager assigned to manage the review of each category was referred to as the Topical area leader (TAL). NEI 05–08 documents project results [25].	+
−	As a consequence of the TAL review, many SIGs were disbanded. Others were combined within TAL areas and several were transferred to new industry sponsorship from NEI to EPRI or INPO to EPRI, etc. This initiative is useful in understanding how changes occurred in many benchmarking areas between 2004 and 2006.	+
−	===CoP list===	+
−	The following CoPs were chartered by the US nuclear industry between 2000 and 2005:	+
−	====Configuration management benchmarking group====	+
−	The configuration management benchmarking group CoP began as a networking group in 1994 on the initiative of PPL Corp (now PPL Susquehanna, LLC). This group established a working relationship with the Nuclear Records Management Association (NIRMA) and some CMBG members participated with NIRMA in development of ANSI/NIRMA CM 1.0-2000 (see Ref. [11]). Until this time there was not complete industry agreement for what constituted ‘Configuration Management’ and INPO AP-929, Rev.0 (see Ref. [23]) was entitled Configuration Control. Following completion of the NEI Configuration Control Benchmarking Project and knowledge transfer workshop, the industry began to see how configuration management could be improved.	+
−	When the CMBG became the CoP, NEI revised the SNPM configuration control process to become configuration management in alignment with the ANSI/NIRMA standard. Then the CMBG worked with INPO to revise the subject process description. In 2005, INPO issued AP-929, Rev.1, (see Ref. [24]) Configuration Management Process Description.	+
−	====Equipment reliability working group====	+
−	Equipment reliability became an important industry focus area about 1998, when INPO began to see adverse trends in system unplanned capability loss factor. The NEI Equipment Reliability Benchmarking Project was conducted in 2002 to help facilitate the knowledge transfer process. The project was created by mutual agreement of NEI, INPO and EPRI when it became clear that process improvement and identification of best practices in this area was necessary to address an adverse trend of systems availability at many US plants. INPO had issued AP- 913 Rev.1 Equipment Reliability Process Description, and about one-third of all plants had performed some sort of implementation. Another one-third had begun implementing in 2002 and the final third had not yet started. This was therefore decided to be a good time to conduct the project.	+
−	The Equipment Reliability Working Group (ERWG) was created a few months following the knowledge transfer workshop.	+
−	====Nuclear supply chain strategic leadership (NSCSL, CoP)====	+
−	The NSCSL was created in 2000 following the completion of the Materials and Services Benchmarking Workshop. At the workshop, a guest speaker from NUSMG (see Section 3.5.1 below) had spoken of the benefits of an organization focused on process management of each SNPM area, using IT as the example. NEI also pointed out that there was a lack of nuclear supply chain focus at the industry level because there were several small and disconnected SIGs tapping into industry manpower for networking purposes but these groups were collectively ineffective in managing the overall business aspects of the supply chain. An industry process description was authored by a team at INPO in about 1996 but industry managers said it did not reflect current supply chain best practices and it was not actively used by the industry as a whole. An effective supply chain was also required to be a key support element of the work management process. Improvements in the work management process were continuing to the point where the supply chain process was viewed as the next essential capability for success.	+
−	====Nuclear information technology strategic leadership (CoP)====	+
−	The Nuclear Utility Software Management Group (NUSMG) began operating in the 1980s as a networking forum for IT professionals. NUSMG members were for the most part software quality practitioners and IT managers. As the ‘Y2K Issue’ approached, NEI successfully tapped the knowledge and infrastructure of NUSMG to assist the industry address the Y2K issue. That success further encouraged NUSMG to be involved with the NEI benchmarking programme. Also about 1998 INPO began hosting an annual meeting for IT managers where issues could also be discussed.	+
−	NUSMG began considering the benefits of functioning as a CoP at the NEI/NUSMG IT Benchmarking Workshop in 2000. About the same time utility IT managers approached NEI about creating a CoP for the IT Process. IT management thought it was beneficial to remain connected with INPO, but at the same time, they wanted to be able to meet as often as required to discuss issues. They were also interested in conducting more formal benchmarking as well as specific annual improvement projects. Their vision was also to maintain an alignment with INPO, NUSMG and the SNPM. In 2001, with the assistance of INPO, NEI chartered NITSL as the CoP for process SS001.	+
−	====Nuclear asset management CoP====	+
−	The NAM CoP evolved in several steps beginning with EUCG in 1997. Most nuclear business managers attended EUCG and many also served as NEI economic points of contact. Since 1989, the EUCG functional cost survey had provided useful information of comparison of costs. When the SNPM was issued in 1998, EUCG began collected activity base costing data as well as SNPM KPIs. In 1999, NEI conducted the Business Services Benchmarking Project as well as initiating a new ‘NEI Business Forum’ to meet the increasing needs for discussion and industry issue activity related to deregulation, plant sales, power uprates and regulatory issues such as decommissioning costs and environmental discussions about ‘Clean air credits’.	+
−	As a result NEI created a nuclear asset management task force. Initially meetings were held concurrent with EUCG. Later separate meetings were required to address NAM TF project work. Finally NAM became an NEI-sponsored CoP. In 2005, the NAM CoP was initially assigned to remain with NEI but later in 2006 it was transferred to EPRI.	+
−	====Nuclear information management strategic leadership (CoP)====	+
−	After seeing the results attained by other CoPs, subject matter experts (SME) in the records management process were eager to conduct an NEI benchmarking project. Most were members of NIRMA and several were part of another networking group called Document Control and Records Management. Following completion of the benchmarking project a core group of SMEs arranged with NIRMA to organize NIMSL as an NEI-sponsored CoP. NIMSL CoP is the leadership team responsible for serving as a focal point for nuclear information management activities associated with the SNPM Process SS003. Information management includes records management, document control, procedures, and office services activities. NIMSL CoP enables plants to compare their methods to others to determine efficiency and cost-effectiveness.	+
		+	Others have distinguished 3 broad classes of CoP <nowiki>[</nowiki>5<nowiki>]</nowiki>:
−	====Nuclear human resources group (CoP)====	+	* A community of learners
−	Prior to 1994, industry nuclear human resource services were available from Edison Electric Institute (EEI). In 1994, a core group of nuclear human resource professionals met to discuss fitness for duty and staffing issues in the nuclear industry.	+	* A collaborative group within an organisation;
−	The group found it easier to create a networking and shared services group called nuclear human resources professionals (NHRP) that was later formed under EEI as a Working Committee. NHRP accomplishments included implementing the NRC Fitness for Duty Rule and benchmarking other nuclear fingerprinting, professional development, recruiting and staffing and other similar human resources and compensation/labor issues. When the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) was formed, the human resource committee was not ‘transferred’ to NEI. About the same time, INPO was monitoring and analysing total nuclear industry staffing capabilities according to a standard set of accepted professional categories. Prior to this, the utilities relied upon private consulting companies to conduct periodic NPP staffing surveys.	+	* A <nowiki>’</nowiki>virtual<nowiki>’</nowiki> (online) community.
−	In 1996, INPO stopped collection and analysis of staffing data which gave the Electric utility cost group (EUCG) an opportunity to add staffing data to their services offerings. A functional staffing survey was created within the EUCG in 1997. Also in 1996, the NHRP was formed outside of EEI that no longer supported nuclear efforts or committees due to the formation of NEI. The Nuclear human resource group (NHRG) was facilitated by a human resources consultant with former nuclear utility experience. In 1999, NEI began briefing the NHRP about the benefits of conducting formal benchmarking and also in working with the EUCG to establish an improved standard nuclear staffing survey and HR metrics that were in alignment with the SNPM. These planning efforts resulted in the conduct of the NEI Human Resources Benchmarking Project in 2000. After the project was complete NHRP reorganized with executive sponsorship and a more senior leadership structure to become the NHRG (CoP).	+
−	====Licensing community (CoP)====	+
−	NEI began about 2000 to engage the NRC strategically with a group called the License amendment task force. Both NEI and the NRC each had their own LATF and there were joint meetings conducted periodically. NEI also began conducting Licensing Information Forums in the fall about six months prior to the next NRC Regulatory Information Conference. In 2002, the NEI LATF sponsored the Licensing Benchmarking project and the industry began to engage the NRC is mutually beneficial process issues as well as the traditional regulatory discussions. Following the NEI Licensing Benchmarking Project, the formation of a Licensing CoP was discussed as part of the workshop. The following year the group was referred to as the Licensing Community and the utility portion of the LATF began to serve as a steering body for the community.	+
−	====Fire protection (CoP)====	+
−	The fire protection CoP was created following completion of the NEI Fire Protection Benchmarking Project and accepted in principle at the NEI Fire Protection Information Forum in 2002. This group continues to evolve as a global CoP with over 125 members spanning US and International utilities as well as other fire protection organizations. Global reach is accomplished primarily via a highly effective Web-site however direct international contacts are also maintained by formal peer visits contact and meetings at the annual Fire Protection Forum.	+
−	====Work Management Working Group====	+
−	The INPO Work Management Working Group is long-standing organization that over the years has acted to create and improve the work management process, develop and update AP-928, the Work Management Process Description and also to facilitate discussions between work management professionals and other utility staff such as maintenance managers, outage managers and maintenance planning managers. Work management is the centerpiece of the SNPM due to the amount of resources required to maintain plant equipment, the importance of limiting maintenance back-log and the number of process interfaces required for efficient operation. INPO has long recognized this and by 2000 the early series of four sub-process AP-documents had all been consolidated into AP-928, Rev.0.	+
−	At this point, the WMWG developed a White Paper about the advantages of being better ‘Asset managers’. By collaborating with NEI, the NEI work management role in Nuclear Asset Management Benchmarking Project was completed in 2003. The WMWG also issued Rev.1 to AP-928 and was recognized as the WM CoP. In 2007, the WMWG released AP-928, Rev.2.	+
−	===CoP benchmarking methods===	+
−	‘Benchmarking’ activities carried out by each CoP varied from group to group. Each group was characterized by a charter, leadership structure and membership requirements. All CoPs had access to at least one Web-site for communications, posting of information and conducting business. A wide variety of CoP benchmarking activities are summarized in Table 4 below. Each CoP may choose what type of activities are best to perform based on the maturity of the overall process, industry issues that may be challenging the process and the amount of resources they have available to conduct their business.	+
−	'''Source:''' [[Process oriented knowledge management]]	+	Whilst their development and use is not exclusive to the world of business, CoP have become a key element within the KM strategies of many industrial and commercial organisations. In those organisations, a proactive approach to enabling the formation and maintenance of CoP has demonstrated a number of benefits that support effective knowledge sharing.
		+	In particular CoP can support key strategic objectives, such as:-
−	== References ==	+	* Providing greater visibility and access to key domain experts in order to address short and long term technical and business issues.
		+	* Development, across geographically distributed networks, of groups for the purpose of enhanced knowledge sharing and collaboration.
		+	* Supporting professional career development, education, training and mentoring programmes
		+	* Providing a mechanism for long term knowledge retention and transfer.
		+	* Providing a mechanism and process for the capture and sharing of lessons from operational experience.
−	[8] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W., M., Cultivating Communities of Practice: A	+	In the context of the objectives set out above CoP can be seen as providing valuable environments in:-
−	Guide To Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA (2002).	+
		+	* Finding specific expertise.
		+	* Providing a forum for ad hoc requests for information, solutions to problems, troubleshooting and operational feedback.
		+	* Enabling collaborative development of guidance, procedures and training material.
		+	* Supporting the sharing of experiences and learning in the development and use of methods techniques, and technologies.
		+	* Supporting the identification and implementation of technical and safety related process improvements.
		+	* Facilitating learning and knowledge sharing across supply chains.
		+	* Other examples like university networks
		+
		+	In summary, CoP can provide benefits to organisations and to individuals.  CoP provide organisations with the opportunity to leverage their knowledge networks and knowledge assets through a mechanism that does not rely on a centralised, hierarchical organisational structure for transferring knowledge.  Individuals on the other hand are motivated to participate in CoP as a means of supporting their own professional development and their professional identity.
		+
		+	===Communities of practice in the nuclear context===
		+	Researchers have identified that since these early studies organisations have adopted CoP into their own context because of their manifest benefits. It has also been noted that in order to fit these CoP in large hierarchical organisations where centralised control is the prevailing culture,  the CoP model has had to be adapted to fit <nowiki>[</nowiki>8 <nowiki>]</nowiki> . In order to develop a more practical definition of CoP in the Nuclear context the IAEA has hosted a number of meetings to consider recent experience and good practice in a range of countries and types of facilities. The resultant definition that fits the Nuclear sector<nowiki>’</nowiki>s experience is one that is broader and more inclusive than the original theory suggests.
		+
		+	In the process of gathering actual experience from the field it became apparent that a number of key dimensions of CoP needed to be described to better describe the more inclusive working definition and good practice in the field.
		+
		+	====Formality====
		+
		+	{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
		+	|In terms of their formality, then CoP may:
		+	|&nbsp;
		+	|&nbsp;
		+
		+	|}
		+
		+	* Be formal or informal in their operation and structure
		+	* Be sponsored and sustained by management or entirely self-sustained by the members
		+	* Have a designated budget or have the costs of the CoP absorbed by the employers
		+	* Have a defined task or a defined interest
		+
		+	====Membership====
		+	In terms of their membership, then CoP may:
		+
		+	* Have a membership consisting of defined roles or the roles develop organically
		+	* Have members appointed or membership is entirely voluntary
		+	* The members can be relatively inexperienced or experts
		+	* Membership consists of a single discipline or is multidisciplinary
		+
		+	====Outputs====
		+	In terms of their outputs, CoP may:
		+
		+	* Produce tangible outputs  or  intangible benefits
		+	* Outputs are shared only within the group or shared out with the group
		+	* Outputs are shared only within the organisation or outside the organisation
		+	*
		+	====Financial support and outcomes====
		+	In terms of their costs, it was also noted that:
		+
		+	* The purpose of a CoP is not directly financial, however it can often contribute to the success of commercial organisations
		+	* In many cases where umbrella organisations are used to support the operations and activities of CoP such as organising meetings, inviting speakers etc. then membership fees are charged
		+
		+	====Sponsoring organisations====
		+	Numerous different operating models are being used internationally and the following is a list of examples of the organisations that are influential and successful in sponsoring and organising CoP activities:
		+
		+	* Industry associations like INPO, WANO
		+	* Institutes like EPRI, IEEE
		+	* Standards like BSI, ISO
		+	* IAEA, e.g. Technical working groups
		+	* Technical societies like CNS, JNS,ANS, VVER, SNE
		+	* Professional societies like BNES, ASQ, ASME
		+	* Lobby groups like FORATOM, NIA
		+	* Regulators such as WENRA
		+	* Government sponsored organisations such as NDA in the UK
		+	* Unsponsored groups include numerous informal technical CoP
		+
		+	===Activities and aims===
		+	CoP undertake a wide range of activities and exist to achieve different ends. Among these are the following categories and examples of objectives often found in practice:
		+
		+	====Sharing good practice====
		+	* Recognise, define, promote, develop, share  good practice
		+	* Develop normative practice (e.g. mandatory standards)
		+	====Sharing knowledge====
		+	* Produce documents in order to disseminate and capture knowledge
		+	* Disseminate and preserve knowledge by sharing and communicating experiences and ideas
		+	* Information exchange and sharing of knowledge
		+	====Problem solving====
		+	* Identify potential improvements that can be implemented by others
		+	* Identify and solve mutual problems and challenges members find in their own work
		+	* Innovate; developing new ways of doing and new processes, finding new ideas for improvement
		+	* Create knowledge by analysing problems and resolving them collaboratively
		+	====Connecting people====
		+	* Create networks to connect people with similar interests and problems
		+	* Mutual support between members
		+	====Learning====
		+	* Members develop each other
		+	* Learn together as a community and as individuals
		+	* Develop collective expertise within the domain
		+	====Providing leadership====
		+	* Contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge, to advance the ideas of the practice
		+	* Legitimise courses of action through collective decision making and agreement, peer verification, testing practices etc.
		+	====Promote cooperation====
		+	* Introduce collaborative processes into organisations
		+
		+	==Bodies of practice for CoP – Knowledge Domains==
		+	The ways CoP define their domains of practice varies widely between different organisations, cultures and industry sectors. The dimensions on which CoP domains are circumscribed include inter alia:
		+
		+	{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
		+	|
		+	* Functional
		+	|e.g. maintenance, safety,
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Processes
		+	|e.g. equipment reliability, management systems
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Innovation
		+	|e.g. waste without a disposal solution, digital applications (I&C)
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Technology
		+	|e.g. PWR, CANDU
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Discipline
		+	|e.g. engineers, physicists
		+
		+	|}
		+
		+	* Ad Hoc – Single strategic issue
		+
		+	{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
		+	|
		+	* Problems
		+	|e.g. fuel defects
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Destiny
		+	|e.g. final waste repository solution
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Projects
		+	|e.g. de-Tritiation
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* New regulations
		+	|e.g. nuclear liability, new standards
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Emerging issues
		+	|e.g. response to Fukushima lessons,
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Regulatory issues
		+	|e.g. environmental assessments,
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Public acceptance
		+	|e.g. stakeholder consultations
		+
		+	|-
		+	|
		+	* Nuclear life cycle
		+	|e.g. waste management
		+
		+	|}
		+
		+	===Good practice and lessons learned in CoP===
		+	The increased use of CoP within organisations<nowiki>’</nowiki> KM strategy has prompted several benchmarking studies and <nowiki>’</nowiki>good practice<nowiki>’</nowiki> reviews (e.g. <nowiki>[</nowiki>6<nowiki>]</nowiki>, <nowiki>[</nowiki>7<nowiki>]</nowiki>). These studies have sought to identify what makes effective CoP, and conversely what the challenges are to implementing and sustaining active CoP.
		+
		+	The KM literature contains many examples of reviews of the critical factors that underpin successful CoP (e.g., <nowiki>[</nowiki>5<nowiki>]</nowiki>, <nowiki>[</nowiki>6<nowiki>]</nowiki>, <nowiki>[</nowiki>7<nowiki>]</nowiki>). Such factors include, but are not limited to:
		+
		+	The basic elements that underpin effective, proactive and sustained CoP include clear objectives and purpose; a clearly understood and motivated membership; an available, accessible and user friendly online platform; and effort available for defined and resourced roles to support the running of the network.
		+
		+	Effort and resources are required to create, sustain and organise CoP if they are to have positive outcomes.
		+
		+	Communities of practice are not universally successful however the following characteristics are generally true of effective CoP:
		+
		+	====Members====
		+	* Members feel they get value from membership and that their contribution is valued
		+	* Members put a lot of effort into the CoP business, often voluntarily
		+	* The members like to be active with the CoP, in some cases this would even apply after  they retire
		+	* The CoP continues to attract new members
		+	* Trust amongst CoP members ensures an adequate level of knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing activity.
		+	* Members have passion and commitment to the domain subject
		+	* Members feel proud to be a member and have an affinity to the CoP
		+	* There is a sense of accountability amongst members
		+	* Members respect and value the other members expertise
		+	* There is transparency and openness within the group
		+	* There is a critical mass of active and engaged members
		+	* The membership includes experts
		+	====Group processes====
		+	* Clearly defined and supported roles and responsibilities for CoP leaders and facilitators along with appropriate training.
		+	* Formal or informal leaders who encourage contributions from members
		+	* An appropriate balance between achieving the informal and voluntary participation from community members and a degree of formal <nowiki>’</nowiki>governance<nowiki>’</nowiki> to ensure quality and coherence of information and knowledge exchange and sustained activity.
		+	* Having goals or measurable outcomes may be helpful
		+	* Having rules for operating,  with clear roles and responsibilities may also be helpful
		+	* An appropriate mix of face-to-face and online CoP activities and support
		+	* Group activities are coordinated and facilitated
		+	* In large geographically dispersed CoP more organisation and structure is called for and often a virtual workspace
		+	====Recognised expertise====
		+	* The value added by CoP and the expertise they contain is recognised beyond the immediate membership
		+	* The advice of CoP is sought by decision makers
		+	* Has an authoritative voice and is respected
		+	* The CoP records its activities and  its stories of success
		+	* Professionals in the field talk about the achievements and practice
		+	* CoP achieve targets (where they exist)
		+	====Sustainability====
		+	* The CoP is Sustainable and has a  longevity that survives changes in membership and reorganisations
		+	* It is part of "the way we work"
		+	====Shared purpose and objectives====
		+	* Members understand, sometimes implicitly, the CoP purpose,  mission and general goals
		+	* A clear rationale and link between a CoP and the needs of the members of and participating organisation, or organisations.
		+	====Sponsorship====
		+	* Continuing sponsorship, by stakeholders provide on-going motivation, enabling resources and materials to sustain activities
		+	* Senior management, or key stakeholder provide sponsorship to <nowiki>’</nowiki>permission<nowiki>’</nowiki> and encourage participation
		+	====Governance====
		+	* CoP can be self-governed or externally governed by sponsoring organisations or senior management (See Appendix 3)
		+	===Things to avoid===
		+	Things often go wrong in the initial phases of CoP maturity. The following should be avoided if the CoP is to be efficient and effective:
		+
		+	====Control====
		+	* Over control (especially in small communities) or too little control (especially in large communities)
		+	* Imposed rules
		+	* Situational (cultural, task, etc.)
		+	====Non-collaborative behaviours====
		+	* Not encouraging contributions from all members
		+	* Internal competition
		+	* Dominating personalities and personal agendas
		+	====Scope====
		+	* Too much competition between CoP and overlap with other networks
		+	* Too short term a task
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	===Appendices===
		+	====Appendix 1 - Measuring CoP performance====
		+	It is important to define and monitor a range of measures to ensure that the CoP is continuing to meet its objectives, is engaging with community members and is not reliant on sustainability from the facilitation team or a small proportion of core members. Some exemplar measures or metrics associated with a CoP are identified in the Table 1 below.
		+
		+	Table 1 :  Indicative performance measures
		+
		+	{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
		+	|bgcolor = "#000000"|<font color="#000000">Metric</font>
		+	|bgcolor = "#000000"|<font color="#000000">Description</font>
		+
		+	|-
		+	|align = "center" bgcolor = "#D9D9D9" colspan = "2"|Effectiveness
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''Quality Measurements'''<br>track the quality of CoP experience
		+	|
		+	* Level of member satisfaction with the CoP.
		+	* Number of member<nowiki>’</nowiki>s requests for help.
		+	* Amount of time spent by facilitators in running the network.
		+
		+	|-
		+	|align = "center" bgcolor = "#D9D9D9" colspan = "2"|Efficiency
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''Usage measures'''<br>Track member activity
		+	|
		+	* Number of members.
		+	* Level of member activity and contributions to the CoP.
		+	* Number of new members.
		+	* Types and quality of member contribution.
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''Process Measurements'''<br>track the efficiency of network processes
		+	|
		+	* Percentage of responses to requests for information and support
		+	* Average response time to requests for information and knowledge sharing.
		+	* Time taken to submit an online a contribution.
		+	* Online platform availability.
		+
		+	|-
		+	|align = "center" bgcolor = "#D9D9D9" colspan = "2"|Economy
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''Cost Measurements'''<br>Track the overall cost of running the CoP
		+	|
		+	* The cost of the software licences.
		+	* Cost of maintenance and support.
		+
		+	|}
		+
		+	====Appendix 2 Examples and Case studies====
		+
		+
		+	It is acknowledged that there is now a potential to complement IAEA Communities of Practice by exploiting the availability of an on-line platform to create broader expertise networks and collaborative activity and to stimulate a greater level of informal knowledge exchange.
		+
		+	Therefore, the IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy, with the support of the Technical Cooperation program and funding from the European Commission, have embarked on the development of the on-line <nowiki>’</nowiki>CONNECT<nowiki>’</nowiki> collaboration platform, which utilises Microsoft Sharepoint™ technology. This collaborative platform provides and/or addresses the features that were described earlier in this document, as well as a space for accessing quality learning materials to ICoP participants.
		+
		+	At its launch there were 6 networks on the CONNECT platform hosted by the IAEA (with the NKM ICoP being one of those networks).
		+
		+
		+	=====Radioactive Waste Management Networks=====
		+
		+	The first ICoP developed and promoted by the IAEA was in the area of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal. The Underground Research Facilities Network (URF) was organised around the transfer of knowledge and sharing of research facilities for the investigation and construction of underground HLW and spent fuel repositories. Following 10 years successful operation, other ICoP have been proposed, and currently include:
		+
		+	{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
		+	|•
		+	|International Decommissioning Network (IDN)
		+
		+	|-
		+	|•
		+	|Network of Environmental Management and Remediation (ENVIRONET)
		+
		+	|-
		+	|•
		+	|International Low Level Waste Disposal Network (DISPONET)
		+
		+	|-
		+	|•
		+	|International Network of Laboratories for Nuclear Waste Characterization (LABONET)
		+
		+	|}
		+
		+	=====Other Nuclear Energy Networks=====
		+	Besides the core networks comprising radioactive waste management technologies and NKM, the IAEA, due primarily to the success of these efforts, has encouraged the growth and development of ICoP in other complementary areas. A background description of the other communities of practice on the CONNECT platform is shown in Table 2 below.
		+
		+	{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
		+	|'''International Community of Practice'''
		+	|'''Background'''
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''Underground Research Facilities (URF)'''<br>
		+	|Under the auspices of the IAEA, nationally developed Underground Research Facilities (URFs) and associated laboratories concerned with the geological disposal of radioactive waste are being offered for use by various Member States. The URFs and laboratories form a Network for training in and demonstration of waste disposal technologies and the sharing of knowledge. These URFs and the participants in the Member States make up the Underground Research Facilities (URF) Network, a community of practice and learning for geological disposal of nuclear waste.<br><br>The objectives of the URF CoP are as follows:
		+	* To encourage the preservation, sharing and transfer of knowledge and technologies;
		+	* To work on solutions for Member States currently without URFs;
		+	* To supplement national efforts and promote public confidence in waste disposal schemes;<br>To contribute to the resolution of key technical issues.&nbsp;
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''I&C Technologies (ICT)'''<br>
		+	|Nuclear utilities are facing challenges in several I&C areas with ageing and obsolete components and equipment. With license renewals and power uprates, the long-term operation and maintenance of obsolete I&C systems may not be a cost-effective and reliable option. As a consequence, the nuclear industry modernises existing analog I&C systems to digital I&C, as well as implements new digital I&C systems in new plants. The increased functionality of the new digital I&C systems can also open up new possibilities to better support the operation and maintenance activities in the plant.<br><br>The I&C CoP is one mechanism by which the IAEA can provide a setting for exchanging information in meetings and a forum to share lessons learned by producing technical documents in various technical areas.
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''Networking Nuclear Education'''<br>'''(NNE)'''<br>
		+	|The objective of the Networking Nuclear Education (NNE) is to complement new and existing IAEA educational network&nbsp;activities such as the AFRANEST, ANENT and LANENT.<br><br>To serve on behalf of IAEA Member States as an international forum to identify&nbsp;best practices and to&nbsp;share&nbsp;lessons learned&nbsp;experiences and resources amongst nuclear&nbsp;educational institutions.
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''International Decommissioning Network (IDN)'''<br>
		+	|In 2007 the IAEA launched the IDN to provide a continuing forum for the sharing of practical decommissioning experience in response to the needs expressed at the Athens Conference in Dec. 2006 on "Lessons Learned from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities and the Safe Termination of Nuclear Activities". This Network is intended to bring together existing decommissioning initiatives both inside and outside the IAEA to enhance cooperation and coordination.&nbsp; Specifically it<nowiki>’</nowiki>s objectives are:<br>
		+	* To facilitate direct exchange of information between practitioners, i.e. between and among those with extensive decommissioning experience and those seeking to learn from this experience;
		+	* To promote application of "best practices" in decommissioning technology, planning, project management, and the management of nuclear wastes;
		+	* To support the Agency<nowiki>’</nowiki>s agenda on decommissioning as set out in the "Decommissioning Action Plan";
		+	* To improve the quality and timeliness of responses to requests from Member States for assistance with decommissioning of aging or shut-down facilities;
		+	* To assist in strategic and systematic planning of assistance resulting in a logical progression from preliminary planning to full implementation of decommissioning.<br>
		+
		+	|-
		+	|'''Integrated Management Systems Network of Excellence (MSN)'''<br>
		+	|A management system is a framework for managing and continually improving an organisation<nowiki>’</nowiki>s policies, procedures and processes.<br><br> The MSN CoP is focusing on the sharing of experience and experience on management systems.
		+
		+	|}
	==Related articles==		==Related articles==
		+	[[Knowledge network]]
		+
		+	==References==
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>1<nowiki>]</nowiki> Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>2<nowiki>]</nowiki> Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge.  2002. Harvard Business School Press.
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>3<nowiki>]</nowiki> Wenger, E.C., Snyder, W.M. Communities of Practice: the Organizational Frontier.  Harvard Business Review January –February 2000.
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>4<nowiki>]</nowiki> McDermott, R. 2005 <nowiki>’</nowiki>From the Margin to the Heart of the Company: High performance Communities<nowiki>’</nowiki> Consultancy paper.
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>5<nowiki>]</nowiki> Mitchell, J.G., Wood, S.,Young, S., 2001, <nowiki>’</nowiki>Communities of practice: reshaping professional practice and improving organizational productivity in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector
		+
		+	Reframing the Future Initiative<nowiki>’</nowiki> .
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>6<nowiki>]</nowiki> Communities of Practice (CoP) Benchmarking Report: Using CoP to improve individual and organisational performance. 2006. Knowledge and Innovation Network (KIN) Warwick University, .U.K.
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>7<nowiki>]</nowiki> <nowiki>’</nowiki>What are the conditions for and characteristics of effective online learning communities?<nowiki>’</nowiki> Australian Flexible Learning Framework Quick Guides series
		+
		+	2005.
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>8<nowiki>]</nowiki> Li, L.C., Grimshaw, J.M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P.C., Graham, I.D.  <nowiki>’</nowiki>Evolution of Wenger<nowiki>’</nowiki>s concept of community of practice.<nowiki>’</nowiki>  Implementation Science.  March 2009
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>9<nowiki>]</nowiki> A Proposal for Establishing an International Community of Practice on Nuclear Knowledge Management (ICoP). IAEA NKM document 2010.
		+
		+	<nowiki>[</nowiki>10<nowiki>]</nowiki> Communities of Practice [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/search.htm?ct=all&st1=Harry+Scarborough&fd1=aut Harry Scarborough], (Research Director, Leicester University Management Centre, Leicester, UK)
		+
−	[[Category:Tools]]	+	[[Category:Knowledge management method]]

---

Latest revision as of 16:21, 28 January 2016

Definition

A voluntary group of peer practitioners who share lessons learned methods and best practices in a given discipline or for specialized work. The term also refers to a networks of people who work on similar processes or in similar disciplines, and who come together to develop and share their knowledge in that field for the benefit of both themselves and their organization(s).

Description

Community of practice (CoP) is a network of people who work on similar processes or in similar disciplines, and who come together to develop and share their knowledge in that field for the benefit of both themselves and their organization. Communities of practice may be created formally or informally, and they can interact online or in person. In a less-formal context, they are sometimes referred to as Communities of interest. An example in the nuclear industry is the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Community of Practice.

The original thoughts behind the concept of a CoP are generally attributed to E. Wenger, and the techniques and benefits are described in his book [10].

CoPs are generally self-organizing and usually emerge naturally but need management commitment to get started and continue working effectively. They typically exist from the recognition of a specific need or problem and are particularly important in realising benefits in R&D organizations through increased innovation and collaboration.

A CoP provides an environment (face-to-face and/or virtual) to connect people and encourage the sharing of new ideas, developments and strategies. This environment encourages faster problem solving, cuts down on duplication of effort, and provides potentially unlimited access to expertise inside and outside the organization. Information technology now allows people to network, share and develop ideas entirely online. Virtual communities can thus help R&D organizations overcome the challenges of geographical boundaries.

Communities of practice in the literature

Within the KM literature there are numerous definitions for CoP, but most definitions highlight the features first set out by Etiene Wenger the originator of the concept of Communities of Practice, along with anthropologist Jean Lave. He defined the term Communities of Practice as:-

"Groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly."[1]

In a further text Wenger and others go on to describe CoP as:-

"an informal group of peers, sharing ideas, insight, information and help about a topic they are deeply, sometimes passionately, interested in." [2]

Wenger elaborates that CoP have three essential characteristics: a knowledge domain; secondly a community of people who care about the domain be it through a shared set of problems or desire to learn; and thirdly a shared practice that is documented and shared within the community, including policies, operating principles and reference documents. Wenger [3] also distinguishes CoP from other forms of organisational collaborative groups, such as formal working groups and project teams. The essence of CoP is that their purpose is around developing the capabilities of, and exchanging knowledge between, its members; a membership which is self-selected or voluntary.

Emphasising the informal nature of CoP McDermott notes that:-

"membership of is often voluntary and, as community members share ideas and information, they deepen their knowledge of each other as they increase their knowledge of the topic and sense of connection." [4]

Others have distinguished 3 broad classes of CoP [5]:

• A community of learners
• A collaborative group within an organisation;
• A ’virtual’ (online) community.

Whilst their development and use is not exclusive to the world of business, CoP have become a key element within the KM strategies of many industrial and commercial organisations. In those organisations, a proactive approach to enabling the formation and maintenance of CoP has demonstrated a number of benefits that support effective knowledge sharing.

In particular CoP can support key strategic objectives, such as:-

• Providing greater visibility and access to key domain experts in order to address short and long term technical and business issues.
• Development, across geographically distributed networks, of groups for the purpose of enhanced knowledge sharing and collaboration.
• Supporting professional career development, education, training and mentoring programmes
• Providing a mechanism for long term knowledge retention and transfer.
• Providing a mechanism and process for the capture and sharing of lessons from operational experience.

In the context of the objectives set out above CoP can be seen as providing valuable environments in:-

• Finding specific expertise.
• Providing a forum for ad hoc requests for information, solutions to problems, troubleshooting and operational feedback.
• Enabling collaborative development of guidance, procedures and training material.
• Supporting the sharing of experiences and learning in the development and use of methods techniques, and technologies.
• Supporting the identification and implementation of technical and safety related process improvements.
• Facilitating learning and knowledge sharing across supply chains.
• Other examples like university networks

In summary, CoP can provide benefits to organisations and to individuals. CoP provide organisations with the opportunity to leverage their knowledge networks and knowledge assets through a mechanism that does not rely on a centralised, hierarchical organisational structure for transferring knowledge. Individuals on the other hand are motivated to participate in CoP as a means of supporting their own professional development and their professional identity.

Communities of practice in the nuclear context

Researchers have identified that since these early studies organisations have adopted CoP into their own context because of their manifest benefits. It has also been noted that in order to fit these CoP in large hierarchical organisations where centralised control is the prevailing culture, the CoP model has had to be adapted to fit [8 ] . In order to develop a more practical definition of CoP in the Nuclear context the IAEA has hosted a number of meetings to consider recent experience and good practice in a range of countries and types of facilities. The resultant definition that fits the Nuclear sector’s experience is one that is broader and more inclusive than the original theory suggests.

In the process of gathering actual experience from the field it became apparent that a number of key dimensions of CoP needed to be described to better describe the more inclusive working definition and good practice in the field.

Formality

In terms of their formality, then CoP may:

• Be formal or informal in their operation and structure
• Be sponsored and sustained by management or entirely self-sustained by the members
• Have a designated budget or have the costs of the CoP absorbed by the employers
• Have a defined task or a defined interest

Membership

In terms of their membership, then CoP may:

• Have a membership consisting of defined roles or the roles develop organically
• Have members appointed or membership is entirely voluntary
• The members can be relatively inexperienced or experts
• Membership consists of a single discipline or is multidisciplinary

Outputs

In terms of their outputs, CoP may:

• Produce tangible outputs or intangible benefits
• Outputs are shared only within the group or shared out with the group
• Outputs are shared only within the organisation or outside the organisation

Financial support and outcomes

In terms of their costs, it was also noted that:

• The purpose of a CoP is not directly financial, however it can often contribute to the success of commercial organisations
• In many cases where umbrella organisations are used to support the operations and activities of CoP such as organising meetings, inviting speakers etc. then membership fees are charged

Sponsoring organisations

Numerous different operating models are being used internationally and the following is a list of examples of the organisations that are influential and successful in sponsoring and organising CoP activities:

• Industry associations like INPO, WANO
• Institutes like EPRI, IEEE
• Standards like BSI, ISO
• IAEA, e.g. Technical working groups
• Technical societies like CNS, JNS,ANS, VVER, SNE
• Professional societies like BNES, ASQ, ASME
• Lobby groups like FORATOM, NIA
• Regulators such as WENRA
• Government sponsored organisations such as NDA in the UK
• Unsponsored groups include numerous informal technical CoP

Activities and aims

CoP undertake a wide range of activities and exist to achieve different ends. Among these are the following categories and examples of objectives often found in practice:

Sharing good practice

• Recognise, define, promote, develop, share good practice
• Develop normative practice (e.g. mandatory standards)

Sharing knowledge

• Produce documents in order to disseminate and capture knowledge
• Disseminate and preserve knowledge by sharing and communicating experiences and ideas
• Information exchange and sharing of knowledge

Problem solving

• Identify potential improvements that can be implemented by others
• Identify and solve mutual problems and challenges members find in their own work
• Innovate; developing new ways of doing and new processes, finding new ideas for improvement
• Create knowledge by analysing problems and resolving them collaboratively

Connecting people

• Create networks to connect people with similar interests and problems
• Mutual support between members

Learning

• Members develop each other
• Learn together as a community and as individuals
• Develop collective expertise within the domain

Providing leadership

• Contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge, to advance the ideas of the practice
• Legitimise courses of action through collective decision making and agreement, peer verification, testing practices etc.

Promote cooperation

• Introduce collaborative processes into organisations

Bodies of practice for CoP – Knowledge Domains

The ways CoP define their domains of practice varies widely between different organisations, cultures and industry sectors. The dimensions on which CoP domains are circumscribed include inter alia:

Functional	e.g. maintenance, safety,
Processes	e.g. equipment reliability, management systems
Innovation	e.g. waste without a disposal solution, digital applications (I&C)
Technology	e.g. PWR, CANDU
Discipline	e.g. engineers, physicists

• Ad Hoc – Single strategic issue

Problems	e.g. fuel defects
Destiny	e.g. final waste repository solution
Projects	e.g. de-Tritiation
New regulations	e.g. nuclear liability, new standards
Emerging issues	e.g. response to Fukushima lessons,
Regulatory issues	e.g. environmental assessments,
Public acceptance	e.g. stakeholder consultations
Nuclear life cycle	e.g. waste management

Good practice and lessons learned in CoP

The increased use of CoP within organisations’ KM strategy has prompted several benchmarking studies and ’good practice’ reviews (e.g. [6], [7]). These studies have sought to identify what makes effective CoP, and conversely what the challenges are to implementing and sustaining active CoP.

The KM literature contains many examples of reviews of the critical factors that underpin successful CoP (e.g., [5], [6], [7]). Such factors include, but are not limited to:

The basic elements that underpin effective, proactive and sustained CoP include clear objectives and purpose; a clearly understood and motivated membership; an available, accessible and user friendly online platform; and effort available for defined and resourced roles to support the running of the network.

Effort and resources are required to create, sustain and organise CoP if they are to have positive outcomes.

Communities of practice are not universally successful however the following characteristics are generally true of effective CoP:

Members

• Members feel they get value from membership and that their contribution is valued
• Members put a lot of effort into the CoP business, often voluntarily
• The members like to be active with the CoP, in some cases this would even apply after they retire
• The CoP continues to attract new members
• Trust amongst CoP members ensures an adequate level of knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing activity.
• Members have passion and commitment to the domain subject
• Members feel proud to be a member and have an affinity to the CoP
• There is a sense of accountability amongst members
• Members respect and value the other members expertise
• There is transparency and openness within the group
• There is a critical mass of active and engaged members
• The membership includes experts

Group processes

• Clearly defined and supported roles and responsibilities for CoP leaders and facilitators along with appropriate training.
• Formal or informal leaders who encourage contributions from members
• An appropriate balance between achieving the informal and voluntary participation from community members and a degree of formal ’governance’ to ensure quality and coherence of information and knowledge exchange and sustained activity.
• Having goals or measurable outcomes may be helpful
• Having rules for operating, with clear roles and responsibilities may also be helpful
• An appropriate mix of face-to-face and online CoP activities and support
• Group activities are coordinated and facilitated
• In large geographically dispersed CoP more organisation and structure is called for and often a virtual workspace

Recognised expertise

• The value added by CoP and the expertise they contain is recognised beyond the immediate membership
• The advice of CoP is sought by decision makers
• Has an authoritative voice and is respected
• The CoP records its activities and its stories of success
• Professionals in the field talk about the achievements and practice
• CoP achieve targets (where they exist)

Sustainability

• The CoP is Sustainable and has a longevity that survives changes in membership and reorganisations
• It is part of "the way we work"

Shared purpose and objectives

• Members understand, sometimes implicitly, the CoP purpose, mission and general goals
• A clear rationale and link between a CoP and the needs of the members of and participating organisation, or organisations.

Sponsorship

• Continuing sponsorship, by stakeholders provide on-going motivation, enabling resources and materials to sustain activities
• Senior management, or key stakeholder provide sponsorship to ’permission’ and encourage participation

Governance

• CoP can be self-governed or externally governed by sponsoring organisations or senior management (See Appendix 3)

Things to avoid

Things often go wrong in the initial phases of CoP maturity. The following should be avoided if the CoP is to be efficient and effective:

Control

• Over control (especially in small communities) or too little control (especially in large communities)
• Imposed rules
• Situational (cultural, task, etc.)

Non-collaborative behaviours

• Not encouraging contributions from all members
• Internal competition
• Dominating personalities and personal agendas

Scope

• Too much competition between CoP and overlap with other networks
• Too short term a task

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Measuring CoP performance

It is important to define and monitor a range of measures to ensure that the CoP is continuing to meet its objectives, is engaging with community members and is not reliant on sustainability from the facilitation team or a small proportion of core members. Some exemplar measures or metrics associated with a CoP are identified in the Table 1 below.

Table 1 : Indicative performance measures

Metric	Description
Effectiveness
Quality Measurements track the quality of CoP experience	Level of member satisfaction with the CoP. Number of member’s requests for help. Amount of time spent by facilitators in running the network.
Efficiency
Usage measures Track member activity	Number of members. Level of member activity and contributions to the CoP. Number of new members. Types and quality of member contribution.
Process Measurements track the efficiency of network processes	Percentage of responses to requests for information and support Average response time to requests for information and knowledge sharing. Time taken to submit an online a contribution. Online platform availability.
Economy
Cost Measurements Track the overall cost of running the CoP	The cost of the software licences. Cost of maintenance and support.

Appendix 2 Examples and Case studies

It is acknowledged that there is now a potential to complement IAEA Communities of Practice by exploiting the availability of an on-line platform to create broader expertise networks and collaborative activity and to stimulate a greater level of informal knowledge exchange.

Therefore, the IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy, with the support of the Technical Cooperation program and funding from the European Commission, have embarked on the development of the on-line ’CONNECT’ collaboration platform, which utilises Microsoft Sharepoint™ technology. This collaborative platform provides and/or addresses the features that were described earlier in this document, as well as a space for accessing quality learning materials to ICoP participants.

At its launch there were 6 networks on the CONNECT platform hosted by the IAEA (with the NKM ICoP being one of those networks).

Radioactive Waste Management Networks

The first ICoP developed and promoted by the IAEA was in the area of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal. The Underground Research Facilities Network (URF) was organised around the transfer of knowledge and sharing of research facilities for the investigation and construction of underground HLW and spent fuel repositories. Following 10 years successful operation, other ICoP have been proposed, and currently include:

•	International Decommissioning Network (IDN)
•	Network of Environmental Management and Remediation (ENVIRONET)
•	International Low Level Waste Disposal Network (DISPONET)
•	International Network of Laboratories for Nuclear Waste Characterization (LABONET)

Other Nuclear Energy Networks

Besides the core networks comprising radioactive waste management technologies and NKM, the IAEA, due primarily to the success of these efforts, has encouraged the growth and development of ICoP in other complementary areas. A background description of the other communities of practice on the CONNECT platform is shown in Table 2 below.

International Community of Practice	Background
Underground Research Facilities (URF)	Under the auspices of the IAEA, nationally developed Underground Research Facilities (URFs) and associated laboratories concerned with the geological disposal of radioactive waste are being offered for use by various Member States. The URFs and laboratories form a Network for training in and demonstration of waste disposal technologies and the sharing of knowledge. These URFs and the participants in the Member States make up the Underground Research Facilities (URF) Network, a community of practice and learning for geological disposal of nuclear waste. The objectives of the URF CoP are as follows: To encourage the preservation, sharing and transfer of knowledge and technologies; To work on solutions for Member States currently without URFs; To supplement national efforts and promote public confidence in waste disposal schemes; To contribute to the resolution of key technical issues.
I&C Technologies (ICT)	Nuclear utilities are facing challenges in several I&C areas with ageing and obsolete components and equipment. With license renewals and power uprates, the long-term operation and maintenance of obsolete I&C systems may not be a cost-effective and reliable option. As a consequence, the nuclear industry modernises existing analog I&C systems to digital I&C, as well as implements new digital I&C systems in new plants. The increased functionality of the new digital I&C systems can also open up new possibilities to better support the operation and maintenance activities in the plant. The I&C CoP is one mechanism by which the IAEA can provide a setting for exchanging information in meetings and a forum to share lessons learned by producing technical documents in various technical areas.
Networking Nuclear Education (NNE)	The objective of the Networking Nuclear Education (NNE) is to complement new and existing IAEA educational network activities such as the AFRANEST, ANENT and LANENT. To serve on behalf of IAEA Member States as an international forum to identify best practices and to share lessons learned experiences and resources amongst nuclear educational institutions.
International Decommissioning Network (IDN)	In 2007 the IAEA launched the IDN to provide a continuing forum for the sharing of practical decommissioning experience in response to the needs expressed at the Athens Conference in Dec. 2006 on "Lessons Learned from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities and the Safe Termination of Nuclear Activities". This Network is intended to bring together existing decommissioning initiatives both inside and outside the IAEA to enhance cooperation and coordination.  Specifically it’s objectives are: To facilitate direct exchange of information between practitioners, i.e. between and among those with extensive decommissioning experience and those seeking to learn from this experience; To promote application of "best practices" in decommissioning technology, planning, project management, and the management of nuclear wastes; To support the Agency’s agenda on decommissioning as set out in the "Decommissioning Action Plan"; To improve the quality and timeliness of responses to requests from Member States for assistance with decommissioning of aging or shut-down facilities; To assist in strategic and systematic planning of assistance resulting in a logical progression from preliminary planning to full implementation of decommissioning.
Integrated Management Systems Network of Excellence (MSN)	A management system is a framework for managing and continually improving an organisation’s policies, procedures and processes. The MSN CoP is focusing on the sharing of experience and experience on management systems.

Related articles

Knowledge network

References

[1] Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

[2] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. 2002. Harvard Business School Press.

[3] Wenger, E.C., Snyder, W.M. Communities of Practice: the Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review January –February 2000.

[4] McDermott, R. 2005 ’From the Margin to the Heart of the Company: High performance Communities’ Consultancy paper.

[5] Mitchell, J.G., Wood, S.,Young, S., 2001, ’Communities of practice: reshaping professional practice and improving organizational productivity in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector

Reframing the Future Initiative’ .

[6] Communities of Practice (CoP) Benchmarking Report: Using CoP to improve individual and organisational performance. 2006. Knowledge and Innovation Network (KIN) Warwick University, .U.K.

[7] ’What are the conditions for and characteristics of effective online learning communities?’ Australian Flexible Learning Framework Quick Guides series

2005.

[8] Li, L.C., Grimshaw, J.M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P.C., Graham, I.D. ’Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice.’ Implementation Science. March 2009

[9] A Proposal for Establishing an International Community of Practice on Nuclear Knowledge Management (ICoP). IAEA NKM document 2010.

[10] Communities of Practice Harry Scarborough, (Research Director, Leicester University Management Centre, Leicester, UK)