|
|
| (16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | + | <!-- |
| | {{JohnD}} | | {{JohnD}} |
| | | | |
| Line 6: |
Line 7: |
| | | | |
| | {{Priority}}, | | {{Priority}}, |
| | + | --> |
| | | | |
| | ==Definition== | | ==Definition== |
| | | | |
| − | {{PAGENAME}} is/are {{ {{PAGENAME}} }}
| + | {{ {{PAGENAME}} }} |
| − | '''Source:''' [[Comparative Analysis of Methods and Tools for Nuclear Knowledge Preservation]]
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | '''Source:''' [[Process oriented knowledge management for nuclear organizations]]
| + | == Description == |
| − | {{PAGENAME}} is {{ {{PAGENAME}} 2 }}
| + | |
| − | '''Source:''' [[Planning and Execution of Knowledge Management Assist Missions for Nuclear Organizations]]
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | {{PAGENAME}} is/are {{ {{PAGENAME}} 4 }}
| + | Community of practice (CoP) is a network of people who work on similar processes or in |
| − | '''Source:''' [[Process oriented knowledge management for nuclear organizations]]
| + | similar disciplines, and who come together to develop and [[Sharing|share]] their knowledge in that field |
| − | {{PAGENAME}} is/are {{Community of practice 4 }}
| + | for the benefit of both themselves and their organization. |
| − | '''Source:''' [[]]
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | == Summary==
| |
| − | Communities of practice include any group of individuals that make a collaborative effort to improve their practice. As a minimum the group must be sustainable beyond the completion of any particular task or project, survive organisational restructuring and include a core of experts.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Foreword==
| |
| | | | |
| − | Knowledge Management (KM) presents a significant issue for the nuclear industry; be it in relation to the safe and efficient operation of Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) or the development, retention and sharing of knowledge in technical support organisations, regulatory bodies or academic institutions. There is a clear need to be more aware of how expertise is maintained by nuclear professionals in order to effectively discharge their duties.
| + | 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]. |
| | | | |
| − | The issue of knowledge management has also become more significant due to knowledge loss by resignations and retirements of significant number of personnel, who often take important knowledge with them when they leave the industry. This problem is compounded by the decline in the number of new graduates and professionals entering nuclear related fields.
| + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | Considering the critical importance of maintaining a worldwide network of accessible nuclear expertise, it is timely to develop and introduce a comprehensive strategy by which the IAEA can promote and support the formation, development and sustainment of Nuclear Communities of Practice for managing nuclear knowledge with leadership from the IAEA, the world<nowiki>’</nowiki>s centre of cooperation in the nuclear field, for the benefit of Member States.
| + | 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 |
| − | Drawing upon Knowledge Management good practice in general, and lessons learned in respect of Nuclear Communities of Practice in member states in particular, this document is prepared for consideration by representatives of Member States as part of discussions to develop a common framework for facilitating communities of practice that can support the effective management of nuclear knowledge this document
| + | 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 |
| − | The objectives of this document are as follows:
| + | network, share and develop ideas entirely online. Virtual communities can thus help R&D |
| − | | + | organizations overcome the challenges of geographical boundaries. |
| − | * Develop a common understanding and theoretical framework describing Communities of Practice (CoP) are and how they can benefit Nuclear Knowledge Management (NKM)
| + | |
| − | * Describe the diversity of Communities of Practice (CoP) arrangements in member states
| + | |
| − | * Identify examples of good practice and lessons learned
| + | |
| − | * Define a Strategy and Plan for how the IAEA may effectively support, promote and enhance the performance of Communities of Practice in managing knowledge for the benefit of Member States.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Description==
| + | |
| − | ===Introduction===
| + | |
| − | ===Objectives===
| + | |
| − | The objectives of this document are as follows:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Develop a common understanding and theoretical framework describing Communities of Practice (CoP) are and how they can benefit Nuclear Knowledge Management (NKM)
| + | |
| − | * Describe the diversity of CoP arrangements in member states
| + | |
| − | * Identify examples of good practice and lessons learned
| + | |
| − | * Define a Strategy and Plan for how the IAEA may effectively support, promote and enhance the performance of CoP
| + | |
| − | ===IAEA, NKM and Communities of Practice===
| + | |
| − | Knowledge Management (KM) is a significant issue for the nuclear industry; be it in relation to the safe and efficient operation of Nuclear Power Plants, or the development, retention and sharing of knowledge in Technical Support Organisations, Regulatory Bodies or Academic Institutions. There is a clear need within the industry to be more aware of, and be able to draw upon, existing expertise, lessons learned, and guidance that can help nuclear professionals to effectively discharge their duties.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Within the KM discipline in general Communities of Practice are seen as a key enabler of more effective knowledge retention, transfer, sharing and collaboration amongst a group of experts and co-workers in a given knowledge domain.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In 2010 in General Conference (GC (54)/RES/10C) noted the important role which the IAEA plays in assisting Member States in their efforts for preservation and enhancement of nuclear knowledge and in facilitating international collaboration.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The role of the IAEA in putting in place a robust Knowledge Management (KM) strategy and the expectations of Member States were also discussed. The meeting recognized the importance of Communities of Practice (CoP) in nuclear knowledge management (NKM) and their relations to other means of communication and collaboration among Member States and the IAEA.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A number of follow-up consultancy meetings were held with participation of experts from Member States. These groups strongly recommended that the IAEA promote the benefits of CoP. In discussing the potential scope of CoP emphasis was placed upon the activities, tools and culture that promote or facilitate knowledge creation, retention, utilization, storage and transfer. Furthermore the consultants discussed in detail NKM and the role of CoP in Member States to enhance their competencies in the area of NKM. Discussed, in particular, were the different needs of countries that have an on-going nuclear power program, countries that face stagnation in their nuclear power programs but foresee a renaissance, and countries with ambitions for nuclear power.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==How to use this document==
| + | |
| − | Placed within the context of the IAEA this document addresses the role of CoP in encouraging and facilitating management of nuclear knowledge amongst its Member States. This document provide a practical introduction to the valuable role that CoP can play in fostering sharing of knowledge, lessons, and experience in NKM for the good of the international nuclear industry. At the same time the document serves as an introduction and overview of the IAEA<nowiki>’</nowiki>s propsed role in facilitating and promoting the use of CoP as an effective knowledge management tool .
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The document is aimed at a range of individuals, including KM practitioners, and nuclear organization managers; and a range of institutions, for example Nuclear Power Plants, Regulators, Educational and R&D institutions, and Design Organizations.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Definitions of terms and concepts central to the philosophy described are introduced which and common features of nuclear CoP and the role that those features play in facilitating knowledge sharing are described. By reviewing good practice, the document also presents an overview of the key learning points associated with the management of effective CoP.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Finally, drawing upon the concepts and features associated with CoP a strategy and action plan is presented.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | ==Communities of practice in the literature== | + | ===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:- | | 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:- |
| | | | |
| Line 114: |
Line 81: |
| | 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. | | 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== | + | ===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. | | 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. |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Definition===
| |
| − | The root definition for a Community of Practice in the Nuclear field is as follows:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''''A group of individuals that make a collaborative effort to improve their practice'''''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This basic definition was further qualified with the following extended definition for CoP operating in the nuclear context to reflect current practice:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''''Communities of practice include any group of individuals that make a collaborative effort to improve their practice. As a minimum the group must be sustainable beyond the completion of any particular task or project, survive organisational restructuring and include a core of experts:'''''
| |
| | | | |
| | 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. | | 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=== | + | ====Formality==== |
| | | | |
| | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%" | | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%" |
| Line 142: |
Line 100: |
| | * Have a defined task or a defined interest | | * Have a defined task or a defined interest |
| | | | |
| − | ===Membership=== | + | ====Membership==== |
| | In terms of their membership, then CoP may: | | In terms of their membership, then CoP may: |
| | | | |
| Line 150: |
Line 108: |
| | * Membership consists of a single discipline or is multidisciplinary | | * Membership consists of a single discipline or is multidisciplinary |
| | | | |
| − | ===Outputs=== | + | ====Outputs==== |
| | In terms of their outputs, CoP may: | | In terms of their outputs, CoP may: |
| | | | |
| Line 157: |
Line 115: |
| | * Outputs are shared only within the organisation or outside the organisation | | * Outputs are shared only within the organisation or outside the organisation |
| | * | | * |
| − | ===Financial support and outcomes=== | + | ====Financial support and outcomes==== |
| | In terms of their costs, it was also noted that: | | In terms of their costs, it was also noted that: |
| | | | |
| Line 163: |
Line 121: |
| | * 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 | | * 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== | + | ====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: | | 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: |
| | | | |
| Line 177: |
Line 135: |
| | * Unsponsored groups include numerous informal technical CoP | | * Unsponsored groups include numerous informal technical CoP |
| | | | |
| − | ==Activities and aims== | + | ===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: | | 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=== | + | ====Sharing good practice==== |
| | * Recognise, define, promote, develop, share good practice | | * Recognise, define, promote, develop, share good practice |
| | * Develop normative practice (e.g. mandatory standards) | | * Develop normative practice (e.g. mandatory standards) |
| − | ===Sharing knowledge=== | + | ====Sharing knowledge==== |
| | * Produce documents in order to disseminate and capture knowledge | | * Produce documents in order to disseminate and capture knowledge |
| | * Disseminate and preserve knowledge by sharing and communicating experiences and ideas | | * Disseminate and preserve knowledge by sharing and communicating experiences and ideas |
| | * Information exchange and sharing of knowledge | | * Information exchange and sharing of knowledge |
| − | ===Problem solving=== | + | ====Problem solving==== |
| | * Identify potential improvements that can be implemented by others | | * Identify potential improvements that can be implemented by others |
| | * Identify and solve mutual problems and challenges members find in their own work | | * 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 | | * Innovate; developing new ways of doing and new processes, finding new ideas for improvement |
| | * Create knowledge by analysing problems and resolving them collaboratively | | * Create knowledge by analysing problems and resolving them collaboratively |
| − | ===Connecting people=== | + | ====Connecting people==== |
| | * Create networks to connect people with similar interests and problems | | * Create networks to connect people with similar interests and problems |
| | * Mutual support between members | | * Mutual support between members |
| − | ===Learning=== | + | ====Learning==== |
| | * Members develop each other | | * Members develop each other |
| | * Learn together as a community and as individuals | | * Learn together as a community and as individuals |
| | * Develop collective expertise within the domain | | * Develop collective expertise within the domain |
| − | ===Providing leadership=== | + | ====Providing leadership==== |
| | * Contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge, to advance the ideas of the practice | | * 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. | | * Legitimise courses of action through collective decision making and agreement, peer verification, testing practices etc. |
| − | ===Promote cooperation=== | + | ====Promote cooperation==== |
| | * Introduce collaborative processes into organisations | | * Introduce collaborative processes into organisations |
| | + | |
| | ==Bodies of practice for CoP – Knowledge Domains== | | ==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: | | 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: |
| Line 278: |
Line 237: |
| | |} | | |} |
| | | | |
| − | ==Good practice and lessons learned in CoP== | + | ===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 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. |
| | | | |
| Line 289: |
Line 248: |
| | Communities of practice are not universally successful however the following characteristics are generally true of effective CoP: | | Communities of practice are not universally successful however the following characteristics are generally true of effective CoP: |
| | | | |
| − | ===Members=== | + | ====Members==== |
| | * Members feel they get value from membership and that their contribution is valued | | * 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 | | * Members put a lot of effort into the CoP business, often voluntarily |
| Line 302: |
Line 261: |
| | * There is a critical mass of active and engaged members | | * There is a critical mass of active and engaged members |
| | * The membership includes experts | | * The membership includes experts |
| − | ===Group processes=== | + | ====Group processes==== |
| | * Clearly defined and supported roles and responsibilities for CoP leaders and facilitators along with appropriate training. | | * 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 | | * Formal or informal leaders who encourage contributions from members |
| Line 311: |
Line 270: |
| | * Group activities are coordinated and facilitated | | * Group activities are coordinated and facilitated |
| | * In large geographically dispersed CoP more organisation and structure is called for and often a virtual workspace | | * In large geographically dispersed CoP more organisation and structure is called for and often a virtual workspace |
| − | ===Recognised expertise=== | + | ====Recognised expertise==== |
| | * The value added by CoP and the expertise they contain is recognised beyond the immediate membership | | * 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 | | * The advice of CoP is sought by decision makers |
| Line 318: |
Line 277: |
| | * Professionals in the field talk about the achievements and practice | | * Professionals in the field talk about the achievements and practice |
| | * CoP achieve targets (where they exist) | | * CoP achieve targets (where they exist) |
| − | ===Sustainability=== | + | ====Sustainability==== |
| | * The CoP is Sustainable and has a longevity that survives changes in membership and reorganisations | | * The CoP is Sustainable and has a longevity that survives changes in membership and reorganisations |
| | * It is part of "the way we work" | | * It is part of "the way we work" |
| − | ===Shared purpose and objectives=== | + | ====Shared purpose and objectives==== |
| | * Members understand, sometimes implicitly, the CoP purpose, mission and general goals | | * 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. | | * A clear rationale and link between a CoP and the needs of the members of and participating organisation, or organisations. |
| − | ===Sponsorship=== | + | ====Sponsorship==== |
| | * Continuing sponsorship, by stakeholders provide on-going motivation, enabling resources and materials to sustain activities | | * 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 | | * Senior management, or key stakeholder provide sponsorship to <nowiki>’</nowiki>permission<nowiki>’</nowiki> and encourage participation |
| − | ===Governance=== | + | ====Governance==== |
| | * CoP can be self-governed or externally governed by sponsoring organisations or senior management (See Appendix 3) | | * CoP can be self-governed or externally governed by sponsoring organisations or senior management (See Appendix 3) |
| | ===Things to avoid=== | | ===Things to avoid=== |
| Line 344: |
Line 303: |
| | * Too short term a task | | * Too short term a task |
| | | | |
| − | ==Conclusions and recommendations:==
| |
| − | The IAEA can exploit the benefits of Nuclear CoP in achieving its wider aims. In order to do this the following strategic principles and support activities have been identified as consistent with both the IAEA<nowiki>’</nowiki>s role and the needs and expectations of member states:
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Strategic principles governing IAEAs interventions and support for CoP===
| |
| − | * IAEA should not create communities except where it is the body best placed to do so
| |
| − | * IAEA should recognise the wide range of types and topics of CoP that bring value to the industry
| |
| − | * IAEA must not impose a single model but should promote a range of effective CoP models and recommend accordingly as appropriate to the situation
| |
| − | * IAEA should foster international and regional CoP
| |
| − | * IAEA should be seen as the "go to" place and develop and maintain the definitive catalogue of Nuclear CoP. All information on CoP should be current and credible and in one location
| |
| − | * IAEA will not measure the value of CoP in its catalogue
| |
| − | * All CoP (that meet the criteria) have the right to be in the catalogue or the right to opt out, and no CoP will be included in the public catalogue unless permission is given
| |
| | | | |
| − | Practical actions are also required. The following strategy and action plan lists four strategic directions, 9 workstreams and numerous actions that that can be measured during the implementation of the plan.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Strategy for increasing the benefits accruing from CoP=== | + | ===Appendices=== |
| − | * Encourage the creation and support of new CoP
| + | ====Appendix 1 - Measuring CoP performance==== |
| − | * Help existing CoP to improve their performance
| + | |
| − | * Encourage existing CoP to work with new problems
| + | |
| − | * Encourage participation in CoP
| + | |
| − | ===Action plan and Work streams=== | + | |
| − | For convenience and effective project management the strategy has been developed into an action plan along the following 9 workstreams
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 1. Encourage the creation and support of new CoP
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 2. Increase sponsorship
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 3. Provide infrastructure
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 4. Provide blended learning resources
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 5. Help nuclear industry CoP learn from other industries with similar priorities
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 6. Increase connections between Nuclear CoP
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 7. Encourage existing CoP to work with new problems
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 8. Help individuals find and connect with CoP
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 9. Promote the benefits of CoP and CoP membership
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Action plan to implement the strategy==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
| + | |
| − | |bgcolor = "#000000" colspan = "5"|<font size = "6">'''IAEA Action plan for Communities of Practice – '''</font>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''No'''
| + | |
| − | |'''Workstream'''
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |'''Actions and Deliverables'''
| + | |
| − | |'''Benefits'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''1'''
| + | |
| − | |Encourage the creation and support of new Cop
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |1. Determine from the survey where there are gaps in CoP domains<br>2. Create CoP in gaps where the IAEA is best placed to form new CoP<br>3. Form CoP at the IAEA meetings to carry on the work after the meeting<br>4. Provide collaboration tools/platform<br>5. Provide CoP training during the IAEA meetings<br>6. Support ScSce when initiating CoP<br>7. Understand why IAEA would be the best to form a CoP in any specific domain gap<br>8. Encourage other organisations to create CoP in gaps where the IAEA is not best placed to form new CoP<br>9. Encourage CoP creation by interacting with MS via permanent missions et al<br>10. Encourage CoP creation by interacting with other organisations
| + | |
| − | |CoP active in new areas
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''2'''
| + | |
| − | |Increase sponsorship
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |1. Encourage existing Sponsors to legitimise sponsorship and provide resources<br>2. Identify existing Sponsors<br>3. Take information from the completed CoP survey<br>4. Provide training opportunities for Sponsors to understand their role<br>5. Create a Sponsor<nowiki>’</nowiki>s training course<br>6. Create a CoP of CoP Sponsors<br>7. Attract new potential Sponsors<br>8. Promote CoP sponsorship with senior stakeholders through the existing IAEA channels<br>9. Publish the benefits of being a Sponsor<br>10. Use media to promote CoP
| + | |
| − | |Increased resources for CoP
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''3'''
| + | |
| − | |Provide infrastructure<br>
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |1. Provide opportunities for CoP to meet face to face<br>2. Provide online conferencing facilities, e.g. ANSN<br>3. Provide CoP website facilities<br>4.
| + | |
| − | |Increased resources for CoP
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''4'''
| + | |
| − | |Provide blended learning resources<br>
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |5. Organise webinars, conferences and seminars<br>6. Invite international experts to speak at the seminars etc<br>7. Provide a CoP peer assist service<br>8. Provide a helpdesk service<br>9. Produce online guidance documents<br>10. Publish a document "How to build successful CoP manual"<br>11. Collect and publish good-practice case studies and lessons learned<br>12. Create a self-assessment guideDetermine where there are recognised gaps (see theme 2)
| + | |
| − | |Increased resources for CoP
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''5'''
| + | |
| − | |Help nuclear industry CoP learn from other industries with similar priorities<br>
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |1. Identify and share good practice in non-nuclear industries<br>2. Collect and publish good-practice case studies and lessons learned<br>3. Identify where similar priorities exist in other industries<br>
| + | |
| − | |Existing CoP improve their performance<br>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''6'''
| + | |
| − | |Increase connections between Nuclear CoP
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |1. Invite CoP to the IAEA meetings (as well asf individuals or organisations)<br>2. Provide a catalogue of CoP<br>3. Create a CoP of CoP leaders
| + | |
| − | |Existing CoP improve their performance<br>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''7'''
| + | |
| − | |Encourage existing CoP to work with new problems<br>
| + | |
| − | |<br>
| + | |
| − | |1. Identify new problems<br>2. Communicate new problem areas to CoP<br>3. Identify CoP that work in areas that are similar to the new problems<br>4. Consult the survey results<br>5. Arrange IAEA CS meetings on new problems and invite CoP<br>6. Define which new problems could benefit from CoP<br>7. Define the criteria by which problems could selected
| + | |
| − | |Existing CoP improve their performance<br>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''8'''
| + | |
| − | |Help individuals find and connect with CoP<br>
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |1. Produce an indexed, validated catalogue of CoP<br>2. Identify existing CoP and their domains<br>3. Conduct a survey of CoP<br>4. Design a survey<br>5. Distribute the survey<br>6. Categorise and index CoP<br>7. Map CoP<br>8. Validate the information in the catalogue<br>9. Confirm details with the identified primary contact<br>10. Make a catalogue of CoP widely available<br>11. Publish the catalogue on Connect<br>12. Make catalogue available to non-registered users<br>13. Advertise the catalogue widely<br>14. Advertise the catalogue on the IAEA website<br>15. Advertise on other CoP websites<br>16. Produce and distribute a brochure to MS<br>
| + | |
| − | |Greater participation in CoP<br><br>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |'''9'''
| + | |
| − | |Promote the benefits of CoP and CoP membership
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |1. Produce a brochure on benefits of CoP<br>2. Make CoP more visible on the IAEA website<br>3. Advertise the benefits of CoP on external websites<br>4. Raise awareness in different regions<br>5. Raise awareness with NLO<nowiki>’</nowiki>s of each country<br>6. Encourage the inclusion of CoP in country report templates<br>7. Encourage the inclusion of CoP in the national strategy of public awareness<br>8. Provide information about relevant CoP to IAEA meetings<br>9. Promote the concept of CoP at leadership fora<br>10. Promote CoP at general conference<br>11. Identify relevant CoP for each IAEA meeting
| + | |
| − | |Greater participation in CoP<br>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | |}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Appendices==
| + | |
| − | ===Appendix 1 - Governance=== | + | |
| − | Where the organisation decides that there is a need for Governance then lessons from CoP good practice has shown the importance of introducing a degree of governance which whilst it must not stifle the voluntary and active participation of members, enables community growth and ensures provision of the correct infrastructure in terms, for example, of administration, online facilities and overall coordination. Bearing the requirement to balance the informal and formal, a governance framework should set out and ensure adequate resourcing for, the appropriate controls, roles, responsibilities, processes and online tools to ensure the desired level of knowledge sharing and collaboration and to ensure that the scope and purpose of the community is sustained.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Whilst it is important to avoid negation of the positive effects of a healthy, voluntary interaction between a motivated network of experts and learners it cannot be expected that simply making a CoP available will lead to a dynamic sustainable knowledge network. A CoP needs to be stimulated into action, needs to be sustained through proactive governance and facilitated through a number of nominated roles and resourced in terms of IT provision in relation to online facilities.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In general the governance framework should:-
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Guide the initial CoP definition in terms of scope and objectives.
| + | |
| − | * Ensure engagement with key stakeholders including sponsors for the CoP.
| + | |
| − | * Provide adequate resource in terms of effort for key roles and for the provision and on-going support for online platform and tools.
| + | |
| − | * Ensure <nowiki>’</nowiki>terms of reference<nowiki>’</nowiki> and necessary guidance (<nowiki>’</nowiki>rules<nowiki>’</nowiki>) for CoP behaviour and expectation are in place and communicated to members.
| + | |
| − | * Ensure processes are in place to monitor quality in terms of knowledge sharing and collaborative content and its appropriateness; and that overall CoP performance is monitored with regard to its specified objectives.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Appendix 2 - Roles and Responsibilities=== | + | |
| − | In organisations that have introduced a formal governance framework has been implemented as part of their KM policy and strategy the following roles and responsibilities have been found to be effective:-
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Steering Group====
| + | |
| − | A management team comprising key stakeholders, responsible for the development of CoP policy, promotion of CoP as a knowledge sharing mechanism, securing of resources and monitoring of overall performance.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Sponsor====
| + | |
| − | Often a senior manager who represents and promotes the CoP within the organisation and who identifies key stakeholders and key subject matter experts who should be involved in the CoP.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Coordinator or Facilitator====
| + | |
| − | A subject matter expert, or a more junior employee who participates as part of their professional development, who acts as the point of contact for day to day co-ordination of the CoP.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====IT Support====
| + | |
| − | Usually within the IT or IS function who setup and maintain the IT tools that will underpin the online CoP facilities.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Members====
| + | |
| − | To actively participate in the knowledge sharing and collaboration activities of the CoP.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Appendix 3 - The role of online facilities in enabling CoP===
| + | |
| − | Whilst CoP, as described by the definitions set out earlier in this document do not necessarily need to be mediated through online (i.e., computer-based) communication, it is a fact that some degree of online support is now a common feature of many CoP. This is due, in part, to the opportunity afforded by the Internet to leverage knowledge sharing and collaboration across an ever wider, geographically distributed membership.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Greater accessibility to the internet, combined with greater bandwidth, ever more sophisticated tools, and familiarity with email and social media has all led to greater availability, usability and familiarity with electronic communication and interaction.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Given the regional and global nature of many communities, <nowiki>’</nowiki>face-to-face<nowiki>’</nowiki> communication and interaction between members is not always feasible due to economic or logistical constraints. However, the importance of a degree of face-to-face interaction has been shown to be important in the formation of communities, particularly in respect of building the requisite level of trust and rapport to ensure effective and sustained knowledge sharing between key members.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Typical components of online CoP====
| + | |
| − | There are certain features and facilities that characterise many online supported communities, namely:-
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * A searchable directory of member profiles detailing for example contact details, areas of expertise and areas of interest.
| + | |
| − | * Forums for submitting and responding to <nowiki>’</nowiki>ad hoc<nowiki>’</nowiki> requests for advice and support from community members, or for managing discussions and collaboration on particular thematic topics that are of interest to a sub-set of the community.
| + | |
| − | * <nowiki>’</nowiki>Blog<nowiki>’</nowiki> facilities to communicate and prompt discussion on key topics of interest.
| + | |
| − | * Document management facilities for storing and retrieving documentation key to the knowledge domain such as guides, standards and lessons learned.
| + | |
| − | * Collaborative work spaces (e.g. <nowiki>’</nowiki>Wikis<nowiki>’</nowiki>) to support the development amongst the community of new material such as procedures, guides and training courses.
| + | |
| − | * Calendar of Events informing members of online and face-to-face seminars, webinars and conferences.
| + | |
| − | ===Appendix 4 - 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. | | 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. |
| | | | |
| Line 560: |
Line 356: |
| | |} | | |} |
| | | | |
| − | ==Examples and Case studies== | + | ====Appendix 2 Examples and Case studies==== |
| − | ===IAEA International Communities of Practice (ICoP) for Managing Nuclear Knowledge===
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | ====Background to the ICoP====
| |
| − | So far this document has focussed upon the general objectives, knowledge sharing, expertise networking and collaborative characteristics associated with CoP. This section now overviews some of the key efforts that the IAEA is making in facilitating international CoP (ICoP) on behalf of, and in conjunction with the active participation of its Member States.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In this regard, the objectives of ICoP are as follows:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |To support existing activities and initiation of new activities for Member States.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |To establish, make visible, and maintain a worldwide network of accessible nuclear expertise.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |To facilitate sharing and transfer of expertise and experience in a socially responsible way through online and face-to-face meetings.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |To promote stakeholder awareness, understanding and impact of managing nuclear knowledge for the peaceful applications of nuclear technologies.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |To demonstrate the role and value of CoP as one element of an overall KM strategy.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Since 2002, the General Conference has noted the important role that the IAEA plays in assisting Member States in their efforts to preserve and enhance nuclear knowledge and to facilitate international collaboration.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To better respond to the recommendations and suggestions of Member States and the IAEA Standing Advisory Group for Nuclear Energy (SAGNE) the Agency decided to establish international communities of practice for managing nuclear knowledge.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Subsequently, several Technical and Consultative Meetings were held with participation of experts from Member States. The participants of the meetings made comments on how to develop further the IAEA activities in this area of ICoP in order to generate and accelerate knowledge sharing, as well as to increase the efficiency of supporting Member States.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In discussing the potential scope of an ICoP, emphasis was placed upon the activities, tools and culture that promote or facilitate knowledge creation, retention, utilization, storage and transfer. Discussed, in particular, were the different needs of countries that have an on-going nuclear power program, countries that face decommissioning of their nuclear power programs, those that are considering a nuclear renaissance following stagnation, and those countries with ambitions for nuclear power.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 4.2 International Communities of Practice and the CONNECT Platform
| |
| | | | |
| | 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. | | 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. |
| Line 606: |
Line 365: |
| | At its launch there were 6 networks on the CONNECT platform hosted by the IAEA (with the NKM ICoP being one of those networks). | | At its launch there were 6 networks on the CONNECT platform hosted by the IAEA (with the NKM ICoP being one of those networks). |
| | | | |
| − | ====Nuclear Knowledge Management (NKM) Community of Practice====
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The aim of the ICoP on NKM is described below:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "To serve on behalf of IAEA Member States as an international forum for learning and growth of competence in the application of nuclear knowledge management." <nowiki>[</nowiki>8<nowiki>]</nowiki>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Agency<nowiki>’</nowiki>s NKM programme currently covers:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |Development of methodologies and guidance documents for nuclear knowledge management;
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |Facilitation of nuclear education, training and information exchange; and
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |•
| |
| − | |Assisting Member States in maintaining and preserving nuclear knowledge.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Radioactive Waste Management 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: | | 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: |
| Line 650: |
Line 388: |
| | |} | | |} |
| | | | |
| − | ====Other Nuclear Energy Networks==== | + | =====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. | | 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. |
| | | | |
| Line 686: |
Line 424: |
| | | | |
| | |} | | |} |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Related articles== |
| | + | [[Knowledge network]] |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |
| Line 713: |
Line 454: |
| | <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) | | <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) |
| | | | |
| − | ==Abbreviations==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |CoP
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |Community of Practice
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |IAEA
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |International Atomic Energy Agency
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |ICoP
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |International Community of Practice
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |KM
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |Knowledge Management
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |MS
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |Member States
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |NKM
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |Nuclear Knowledge Management
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| |
| − | |SAGNE
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |IAEA Standing Advisory Group for Nuclear Energy
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==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 [[Sharing|share]] their knowledge in that field
| |
| − | for the benefit of both themselves and their organization. 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Source:'''
| |
| − | [[Knowledge Management for Nuclear Research and Development Organizations]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Description==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====CoP background and history;====
| |
| − | 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|sharing]], [[Learning|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====
| |
| − | 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).
| |
| − | [[File:US O&M cost trends (NEI-2007).png|thumb|right|500px|FIG. 23. US O&M cost trends (NEI-2007)]]
| |
| − | ====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.
| |
| − | ====Nuclear human resources group (CoP)====
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | 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 for nuclear organizations]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Description==
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Source: ''' [[Planning and Execution of Knowledge Management Assist Missions for Nuclear Organizations]]
| |
| − | ==Description==
| |
| − | ===Nuclear Knowledge Management===
| |
| − | For the purposes of this document the definition for nuclear knowledge management (NKM) from the IAEA is as follows:-
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "''An integrated, systematic approach applied to all stages of the nuclear knowledge cycle, including knowledge identification, acquisition, utilization, sharing, preservation, and dissemination."''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Communities of Practice===
| |
| − | Within the KM literature there are numerous definitions for CoPs, 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, 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."<nowiki>[</nowiki>''1<nowiki>]</nowiki>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In a further text Wenger and others go on to describe CoPs as:-
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '' "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>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wenger elaborates that CoPs 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 [[Learning|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 CoPs from other forms of organisational collaborative groups, such as formal working groups and project teams. The essence of CoPs 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 CoPs 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."'' <nowiki>[</nowiki>4<nowiki>]</nowiki>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Others have distinguished 3 broad classes of CoP <nowiki>[</nowiki>5<nowiki>]</nowiki>:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * A community of learners
| |
| − | * A collaborative group within an organisation;
| |
| − | * A <nowiki>’</nowiki>virtual<nowiki>’</nowiki> (online) community.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===CoPs and Knowledge Management Strategy===
| |
| − | Whilst their development and use is not exclusive to the world of business, CoPs have become a key element within the KM strategies of across many industrial and commercial sectors and organisations. In those organisations, a proactive approach to enabling the formation and maintenance of CoPs has demonstrated a number of benefits that support effective knowledge sharing.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In particular CoPs 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, CoPs can, for example, 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|learning]] and knowledge [[Sharing|sharing]] across supply chains.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In summary, CoPs can provide benefits to organisations and to individuals. CoPs 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 CoPs as a means of supporting their own professional development and their professional identity.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===The role of online facilities in enabling CoPs===
| |
| − | Whilst CoP<nowiki>’</nowiki>s, as described by the definitions set out earlier in this document do not necessarily need to be mediated through online (i.e., computer-based) communication, it is a fact that some degree of online support is now a common feature of many CoPs. This is due, in part, to the opportunity afforded by the Internet to leverage knowledge sharing and collaboration across an ever wider, geographically distributed membership.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Greater accessibility to the internet, combined with greater bandwidth, ever more sophisticated tools, and familiarity with email and social media has all led to greater availability, usability and familiarity with electronic communication and interaction.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Given the regional and global nature of many communities, <nowiki>’</nowiki>face-to-face<nowiki>’</nowiki> communication and interaction between members is not always feasible due to economic or logistical constraints. However, the importance of a degree of face-to-face interaction has been shown to be important in the formation of communities, particularly in respect of building the requisite level of trust and rapport to ensure effective and sustained knowledge sharing between key members.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Typical components of online CoPs===
| |
| − | There are certain features and facilities that characterise many online supported communities, namely:-
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * A searchable ''[[Skills directory|directory of member profiles]] ''detailing for example contact details, areas of expertise and areas of interest.
| |
| − | * ''Forums'' for submitting and responding to <nowiki>’</nowiki>ad hoc<nowiki>’</nowiki> requests for advice and support from community members, or for managing discussions and collaboration on particular thematic topics that are of interest to a sub-set of the community.
| |
| − | * <nowiki>’</nowiki>''Blog<nowiki>’</nowiki>'' facilities to communicate and prompt discussion on key topics of interest.
| |
| − | * ''Document management'' facilities for storing and retrieving documentation key to the knowledge domain such as guides, standards and [[Lessons learned|lessons learned]].
| |
| − | * ''Collaborative work spaces'' (e.g. <nowiki>’</nowiki>Wikis<nowiki>’</nowiki>) to support the development amongst the community of new material such as procedures, guides and training courses.
| |
| − | * ''Calendar of Events ''informing members of online and face-to-face seminars, webinars and conferences.
| |
| − | [[File:Indicative elements of an online CoP.png|600px|thumbnail|right|Figure 1. Indicative elements of an on-line CoP]]
| |
| − | Figure 1. below, presents a <nowiki>’</nowiki>wireframe view<nowiki>’</nowiki> of a Home Page of an online CoP.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Key Ingredients of Effective Communities of Practice===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Key learning points from CoP good practice===
| |
| − | The basic elements that underpin effective, proactive and sustained CoPs 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The increased use of CoPs 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 CoPs, and conversely what the challenges are to implementing and sustaining active CoPs.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The KM literature contains many examples of reviews of the critical factors that underpin successful CoPs <font color="#FF0000">(e.g., <nowiki>[</nowiki>5<nowiki>]</nowiki>, <nowiki>[</nowiki>6<nowiki>]</nowiki>, <nowiki>[</nowiki>7<nowiki>]</nowiki></font>). Such factors include, but are not limited to:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * A clear rationale and link between a CoP and the needs of the members of and participating organisation, or organisations.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Senior management, or key stakeholder sponsorship to <nowiki>’</nowiki>permission<nowiki>’</nowiki> and encourage network participation.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * A clear and well understood scope and purpose (by sponsors and community members)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Clearly defined and supported roles and responsibilities for CoP leaders and facilitators <font color="#FF0000">along with appropriate training</font>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * <font color="#FF0000">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.</font>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * A sufficient level of <nowiki>’</nowiki>trust<nowiki>’</nowiki> amongst CoP members to ensure an adequate level of knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing activity.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * An appropriate mix of face-to-face and online CoP activities and support
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Provision of user friendly IT tool(s) for online activities
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Measurable and monitored outcomes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The next section covers in more detail, the insights from CoP good practice regarding the necessary governance framework required to develop and sustain an effective network.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Governance===
| |
| − | <font color="#FF0000">Lessons from CoP good practice has shown the importance of introducing a degree of governance which whilst it must not stifle the voluntary and active participation of members, enables community growth and ensures provision of the correct infrastructure in terms, for example, of administration, online facilities and overall coordination. Bearing the requirement to balance the informal and formal, a governance framework should set out and ensure adequate resourcing for, the appropriate controls, roles, responsibilities, processes and online tools to ensure the desired level of knowledge sharing and collaboration and to ensure that the scope and purpose of the community is sustained.</font>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Whilst it is important to avoid negation of the positive effects of a healthy, voluntary interaction between a motivated network of experts and learners it cannot be expected that simply making a CoP available will lead to a dynamic sustainable knowledge network. A CoP needs to be stimulated into action, needs to be sustained through proactive governance and facilitated through a number of nominated roles and resourced in terms of IT provision in relation to online facilities.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As a minimum the governance framework should:-
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Guide the initial CoP definition in terms of scope and objectives.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Ensure engagement with key stakeholders including sponsors for the CoP.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Provide adequate resource in terms of effort for key roles and for the provision and on-going support for online platform and tools.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Ensure <nowiki>’</nowiki>terms of reference<nowiki>’</nowiki> and necessary guidance (<nowiki>’</nowiki>rules<nowiki>’</nowiki>) for CoP behaviour and expectation are in place and communicated to members.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Ensure processes are in place to monitor quality in terms of knowledge sharing and collaborative content and its appropriateness; and that overall CoP performance is monitored with regard to its specified objectives.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''3.2.1. Roles and Responsibilities'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Many organisations who have implemented CoPs as part of their KM policy and strategy have introduced a formal governance framework. Whist the range and details of such frameworks vary from organisation to organisation a common, minimum set of roles and responsibilities can be identified:-
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''''Steering Group'''''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A management team comprising key stakeholders, responsible for the development of CoP policy, promotion of CoPs as a knowledge sharing mechanism, securing of resources and monitoring of overall performance.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''''Sponsor'''''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Often a senior manager who represents and promotes the CoP within the organisation and who identifies key stakeholders and key subject matter experts who should be involved in the CoP.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''''Coordinator or Facilitator'''''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A subject matter expert, or a more junior employee who participates as part of their professional development, who acts as the point of contact for day to day co-ordination of the CoP.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''''IT Support'''''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Usually within the IT or IS function who setup and maintain the IT tools that will underpin the online CoP facilities.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''''Members'''''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To actively participate in the knowledge sharing and collaboration activities of the CoP.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''3.2.2. 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 = "#D9D9D9"|<font color="#000001">Metric</font>
| |
| − | |bgcolor = "#D9D9D9"|<font color="#000001">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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===IAEA International Communities of Practice (ICoP) for Managing Nuclear Knowledge===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Background to the ICoP===
| |
| − | So far this document has focussed upon the general objectives, knowledge sharing, expertise networking and collaborative characteristics associated with CoPs. This section now overviews some of the key efforts that the IAEA is making in facilitating international CoPs (ICoP) on behalf of, and in conjunction with the active participation of its Member States.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In this regard, the objectives of ICoP are as follows:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * To support existing activities and initiation of new activities for Member States.
| |
| − | * To establish, make visible, and maintain a worldwide network of accessible nuclear expertise.
| |
| − | * To facilitate sharing and transfer of expertise and experience in a socially responsible way through online and face-to-face meetings.
| |
| − | * To promote stakeholder awareness, understanding and impact of managing nuclear knowledge for the peaceful applications of nuclear technologies.
| |
| − | * <font color="#FF0000">To demonstrate the role and value of CoP as one element of an overall KM strategy.</font>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Since 2002, the General Conference has noted the important role that the IAEA plays in assisting Member States in their efforts to preserve and enhance nuclear knowledge and to facilitate international collaboration.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To better respond to the recommendations and suggestions of Member States and the IAEA Standing Advisory Group for Nuclear Energy (SAGNE) the Agency decided to establish international communities of practice for managing nuclear knowledge.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Subsequently, several Technical and Consultative Meetings were held with participation of experts from Member States. The participants of the meetings made comments on how to develop further the IAEA activities in this area of ICoP in order to generate and accelerate knowledge sharing, as well as to increase the efficiency of supporting Member States.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In discussing the potential scope of an ICoP, emphasis was placed upon the activities, tools and culture that promote or facilitate knowledge creation, retention, utilization, storage and transfer. Discussed, in particular, were the different needs of countries that have an on-going nuclear power program, countries that face decommissioning of their nuclear power programs, those that are considering a nuclear renaissance following stagnation, and those countries with ambitions for nuclear power.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===International Communities of Practice and the CONNECT Platform===
| |
| − | 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).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Nuclear Knowledge Management (NKM) Community of Practice====
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The aim of the ICoP on NKM is described below:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ''"To serve on behalf of IAEA Member States as an international forum for [[Learning|learning]] and growth of competence in the application of nuclear knowledge management." <nowiki>[</nowiki>8<nowiki>]</nowiki>.''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Agency<nowiki>’</nowiki>s NKM programme currently covers:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Development of methodologies and guidance documents for nuclear knowledge management;
| |
| − | * Facilitation of nuclear education, training and information exchange; and
| |
| − | * Assisting Member States in maintaining and preserving nuclear knowledge.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====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 ICoPs 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 ICoPs in other complementary areas. A background description of the other communities of practice on the CONNECT platform is shown in Table 2 below.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Table 2. Communities of Practice under the IAEA CONNECT Platform'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''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|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 activities such as the AFRANEST, ANENT and LANENT.<br><br>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)'''<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. 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 [[Learning|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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Key features of CONNECT platform that support the ICoP objectives===
| |
| − | In addressing the objectives of the ICoP presented in the previous section, and in considering the CoP good practice earlier in this document, the key features and elements of the ICoP comprise a blend of facilitated virtual (on-line) and face-to-face interactions between the community members that:-
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Connects nuclear experts and practitioners through member profiles and experience lists.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Collects and shares nuclear experience and good practice.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Facilitates collaboration in order to further investigate and develop guidance on particular issues and topics being faced by the international nuclear community.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Given the international and geographically distributed nature of ICoP members there are obvious budgetary and logistical constraints with regard to the amount of face-to-face meetings that can be convened. In this way <nowiki>’</nowiki>virtual<nowiki>’</nowiki> interaction provides a powerful and effective means of communication between members. At the same time it is acknowledged that a purely <nowiki>’</nowiki>anonymous<nowiki>’</nowiki> community is unlikely to build an effective knowledge sharing network and therefore key meetings are arranged where appropriate and feasible.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The ICoP therefore, facilitates the intended uses by employing a range of IT support tools that are intuitive for the user (user friendly), and do not require any software installation. The supporting IT technologies provide the following functions:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * The ability to share information between the members of the network
| |
| − | * A searchable list of members available only to members of the network
| |
| − | * A means of finding experts, or members with a shared experience, in a particular topic
| |
| − | * A list of links to other networks, institutions, websites, etc.
| |
| − | * Basic document management facilities.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The ICoP seeks to address issues facing member states in the various areas as shown in Section 4.2. Whilst an important feature of the ICoP is its support for free-flow and informal knowledge exchanges between members, certain <nowiki>’</nowiki>Thematic Areas<nowiki>’</nowiki> are initiated that group together discussion and development of learning material (e.g. guides, training material) on particular topics.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As the ICoP evolves and as particular topics, issues, and stakeholder requirements arise so further Thematic Areas may be set-up to supplement or, if appropriate, replace extant Areas. The table below sets out some example topic area categories that have been identified during the course of the Technical and Consultancy meetings referred to earlier.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Table 3. Illustrative Thematic Areas'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"
| |
| − | |bgcolor = "#D9D9D9"|'''Thematic Areas'''
| |
| − | |bgcolor = "#D9D9D9"|'''Example sub topics'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Methodologies and guidance<br>
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * Development of NKM policy and strategy.
| |
| − | * Measuring KM.
| |
| − | * Training on methods and tools.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Nuclear education, training and information exchange
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * Succession planning for the nuclear workforce
| |
| − | * Innovation and KM
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Knowledge maintenance and preservation<br>
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * Identification, assessment and preservation of nuclear data and information
| |
| − | * Managing the risk of knowledge loss.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===ICoP Governance===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Drawing once again upon CoP good practice, a governance framework has been devised to ensure more effective running of the ICoP. Such a framework describes the roles and responsibilities of the IAEA Scientific Secretaries who co-ordinate the ICoP; and participants from the Member States who may act in subject mater expert, Thematic Area facilitators or just participants in the network. A <nowiki>’</nowiki>code of practice<nowiki>’</nowiki> is also in place: covering aspects of content development and usage, and acceptable practices related to usage of the features and functions of the on-line tools.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In this regard, a Governance Plan has been developed to cover the range of ICoPs contained within the CONNECT platform. Table 4, below, sets out the key roles described in the ICoP Governance Plan.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Table 4. ICoP Roles and Responsibilitie''''''s'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="left"
| |
| − | |bgcolor = "#D9D9D9"|'''Role'''
| |
| − | |bgcolor = "#D9D9D9"|'''Responsibilities'''
| |
| − | |bgcolor = "#D9D9D9"|'''Appointment '''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Chairperson
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * To represent and promote the ICoP initiative within the Agency and to liaise with other Agency NKM programme initiatives.
| |
| − | * To approve of proposed changes to the overall ICoP structure.
| |
| − | * To determine and manage publicly accessible information.
| |
| − | * To identify experts who could add value to the network.
| |
| − | * To resolve user issues.
| |
| − | * To assess and approve the creation/update of Thematic Areas topic areas or to "sunset" the network if and when it is no longer
| |
| − | * To determine and monitor compliance with user guidelines.
| |
| − | |IAEA Staff,<br>e.g. the Scientific Secretary. This selection will be made by the IAEA<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Coordinator<br>
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * To be the point of contact for day to day co-ordination of the ICoP.
| |
| − | * To support the Chairperson in managing memberships (e.g. granting permissions to a new member to join the network).
| |
| − | * To liaise with, and provide support where necessary, to Thematic Area co-ordinators.
| |
| − | * To coordinate the implementation and progress of the ICoP in line with other IAEA networks and external benchmarks.
| |
| − | * To maintain the membership list.
| |
| − | * To help identify new Thematic Areas
| |
| − | * To determine and maintain interfaces with other established networks
| |
| − | * To analyse and report ICoP usage trends.
| |
| − | |IAEA staff. The selection will be made by the IAEA
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Thematic Area Moderator
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * To proactively encourage participation in the network
| |
| − | * To support the coordinator in maintenance of the content
| |
| − | * To moderate network discussion groups
| |
| − | * To update the network with relevant news items or monitor the industry for "hot topics"
| |
| − | * To assist in answering other members<nowiki>’</nowiki> questions and help identify and retain experts to assist in moderating certain discussion topics
| |
| − | * To be responsible for the structure of the content available to those within the ICoP related to the subgroup
| |
| − | |IAEA staff or Member State nomination or volunteer role to be filled by a subject matter expert
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |IT support
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * To setup and maintain the IT tools that will underpin the online ICoP portal.
| |
| − | |An IAEA staff member
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Members
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * To participate in the knowledge sharing and discussion activities of the ICoP.
| |
| − | * To promote the activities of the ICoP and to distribute information within their national networks as appropriate.
| |
| − | * To recommend suitable members to join the ICoP.
| |
| − | * To adhere to the ICoP code of conduct.
| |
| − | |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | |}<br clear="all">
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Conclusions and Recommendations===
| |
| − | This document has outlined the IAEA<nowiki>’</nowiki>s objectives in establishing an International Community of Practice (ICoP) on nuclear Knowledge Management (NKM). The ICoP is presented as a valuable initiative to further leverage the sharing of NKM knowledge and experience across the international community.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The ICoP initiative is designed to complement the Agency<nowiki>’</nowiki>s overarching NKM programme which comprises the following elements:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Development of '''methodologies and guidance''' documents for nuclear knowledge management;
| |
| − | * '''Facilitation of nuclear education, training''' and information exchange; and
| |
| − | * Assisting Member States in '''maintaining and preserving nuclear knowledge'''.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In addressing its proposed objectives and in complementing the Agency<nowiki>’</nowiki>s NKM programme, the ICoP will facilitate:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Connections between NKM experts and practitioners through member profiles and experience lists.
| |
| − | * Collection and sharing of NKM experience and good practice.
| |
| − | * Collaboration between members seeking to further investigates and develop guidance on particular issues and topics.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In defining the scope and implementation requirements of the ICoP effort has been made to draw upon wider experience of KM good practice in this area.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A key mechanism for enabling the ICoP and achievement of its objectives will be the provision of the on-line, web based, CONNECT platform. Such on-line support will be supplemented, as is feasible and desirable, by face-to-face meetings that help build an effective knowledge sharing and collaborative international community.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The ICoP programme represents an on-going initiative driven by the IAEA and being developed and refined in consultation and based upon active participation of the Member States.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == 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 CoPs 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] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W., M., Cultivating Communities of Practice: A
| |
| − | Guide To Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA (2002).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Related articles==
| |
| − | [[Knowledge broker]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Learning]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Collaboration]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Category:Tools]]
| |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Knowledge management method]] | | [[Category:Knowledge management method]] |
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).
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.
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:-
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.
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 the context of the objectives set out above CoP can be seen as providing valuable environments in:-
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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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).
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:
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.
[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
[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
[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.
