Exploring the maturity and development of global communities of practice

• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Date: 01 October 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1612

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring the maturity and development of global communities

of practice

Rasmus Jørgensen

1

| Enrico Scarso

2

| Kathrin Kirchner

1

| Kasper Edwards

1

1

Implementation and Performance

Management, DTU Management, Kgs. Lyngby,

Denmark

2

Department of Management and Engineering,

University of Padova, Italy

Correspondence

Rasmus Jørgensen, Implementation and

Performance Management, DTU Management,

Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.

Email: rasmus.jorgensen@gmail.com

Researchers have studied the development of communities of practice (CoPs) and

proposed that they can be divided into five stages of maturity: (a) potential,

(b) building, (c) engaged, (d) active, and (e) adaptive. However, there is a lack of cur-

rent case studies exploring CoP development and the link between enablers and

maturity stages. This study adds to the CoP field through a case study of an extreme

case: 20 global CoPs, developed by an engineering company, which were subjected

to the same development initiatives for the past decade. Document analysis and a

group interview with key informants form the basis for the study. The findings

confirm the validity of the maturity stage model and its usefulness in understanding

how a CoP develops over time. The study identifies nine CoP development initiatives

at different maturity stages. Four of the initiatives are of particular interest as

contemporary contributions to the maturity model of Gongla and Rizzuto

(a) competence as practice as a process support enabler in the potential stage;

(b) CoP mentoring as a people behaviour enabler in the engaged stage; (c) continuous

management dialogue as a people behaviour enabler in the engaged stage; and

(d) virtual community support as an enabling technology in the potential stage.

1|INTRODUCTION

Knowledge is recognised as a key business asset and a competitive

resource. Consequently, organisations adopt various knowledge man-

agement approaches (Hislop, Bosua, & Helms, 2018). One approach

is communities of practice (CoP; Aljuwaiber, 2016; Bolisani & Scarso,

2014). CoPs facilitate interpersonal knowledge sharing result-

ing in improvements in work practices and complementing explicit

knowledge-sharing approaches (e.g., written guidelines; Cordery et al.,

2015; Wenger, Snyder, & McDermott, 2002). While CoPs were origi-

nally associated with autonomous development (Lave & Wenger,

1991; Orr, 1996), there is mounting evidence that CoPs can be inten-

tionally developed and managed through specific enablers (Aljuwaiber,

2016; Chu, 2016; Iaquinto, Ison, & Faggian, 2011; Jørgensen, Scarso,

Edwards, & Ipsen, 2019; Ng & Ang, 2007).

CoPs thrive under specific circumstances, accentuating the need

for managers to understand and consider CoP characteristics and

enablers (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2001; Wenger et al., 2002). One such

characteristic is maturity, defined by CoP participant behaviour and

relations with the promoting organisation, and as behaviour and rela-

tions change with maturity, so do enablers of CoP activity (Gongla &

Rizzuto, 2001; Lee, Suh, & Hong, 2010). Scholars frequently refer to

the maturity model proposed by Gongla and Rizzuto (2001), according

to which, CoP maturity progresses through five stages: (a) potential,

(b) building, (c) engaged, (d) active, and (e) adaptive. Each stage is asso-

ciated with specific enablers; consequently, CoP development initia-

tives must fit the maturity stage (Gongla & Rizzuto, 2001). Despite

the widespread use of the maturity concept, there is a lack of contem-

porary empirical case studies of CoP development through maturity

stages (Lee et al., 2010). Furthermore, new information and communi-

cations technology (ICT; e.g., enterprise social networks [ESNs] for

knowledge sharing) and increased practitioner experience with CoPs

could result in new CoP enablers and approaches (Bolisani & Scarso,

2014; Sarka & Ipsen, 2017; Wehner, Ritter, & Leist, 2017).

Studying an extreme case (Yin, 2017) would enable new insights

about CoP enablers and potentially strengthen the causal explanations

Received: 17 August 2019 Accepted: 21 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1612

Knowl Process Manag. 2019;26:321–331. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/kpm © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 321