Group dynamics and the role of ICT in the life cycle analysis of community of practice-based product development: a case study

Purpose This paper aims to examine the dynamics of a community of practice (CoP) through a case study of eCars – Now! They offer open-source blueprints of the electric conversion kits globally. The authors analysed the CoP by considering its entire life cycle, starting from the motives for its establishment, through its active performance, up to the current stage, where the members need to decide whether the community will remain viable. Particular attention was paid to the group dynamics and issues that seemed relevant to the change in dynamics which determine whether a CoP maintains its vitality or dissipates. Design/methodology/approach The qualitative case study was chosen as the research strategy (Yin, 1984) to answer the research question and understand the target phenomenon of the CoP by analysing textual data. This particular case was chosen because of its unusual revelatory value for the case CoP which aims at creating a tangible innovation by using a platform that normally aims at intangible problem-solving (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). In the data collection, the authors used method and researcher triangulation (Patton, 1990). Findings Life cycle analysis revealed four themes that explained the change in the group dynamics and the dispersal of the community: differentiation and dispersal of interests, growth that resulted in role differentiation, virtuality in community development and inclusion of investors. The themes were all related to the fact that the case community operated with not only knowledge, but also with a tangible product. Therefore, the tangibility of a problem to be solved seems to play a pivotal role in a CoP’s operations and dynamics and, in part, also explains the changing role of information and communications technology (ICT) in the process. Research limitations/implications However, this paper identified also different ways to characterize community participation, which was also relevant from group dynamics point of view. Thus, the topic should be studied further. Group dynamics in general, as it relates to the success of CoPs, should be also investigated further. Additional studies should implement the inclusion of external resources in the community. Further research is also needed to investigate tangible and intangible outcomes achieved through CoPs. Much of the available research was conducted over short periods; prolonged interactions in a CoP context could show different results. Practical implications In conclusion, at the beginning of the life cycle of the eCars community, ICT played a significant role. It helped increase awareness of the community in the first place and enabled people to join in, which thus enabled the community to evolve. When the operations evolved and the life cycle progressed, both the physical meeting place as well as personal interaction and communication became emphasized and much more important. In the maturing stage, the role of ICT, and especially social media, is the essential part of the community. Social implications This analysis suggests that at the early stage of a community, the plans can be somewhat random, even utopian, but when the community evolves, this uncertainty can become a problem. First, it affects achieving the actual, and in this case, concrete results. Second, uncertainty and unclarity dampen enthusiasm and motivation, which are of utmost importance due to the voluntary participation. This paper also concludes that when the operations evolved and the life cycle progressed, both the physical meeting place as well as personal interaction and communication became increasingly important. Originality/value This paper argues that the ideological basis for this kind of community should be openness. All information should be available for everyone who registers to the community platform on the internet. This community was working in the mindset of open innovation. Technical documentation and all other material were available for everyone in the community’s wiki pages, which attracted a lot of people who were delighted by eCars. Many advisors delivered technical information and good advice to the practitioners of the community through the platform. The hang arounds were also very well-informed in this stage regarding how the core group was working.

[1]  Pedro Soto-Acosta,et al.  E-business, organizational innovation and firm performance in manufacturing SMEs: an empirical study in Spain , 2015 .

[2]  José M. Merigó,et al.  Analyzing the effects of technological, organizational and competition factors on Web knowledge exchange in SMEs , 2015, Telematics Informatics.

[3]  K. S. Reddy Revisiting and Reinforcing the Farmers Fox Theory: A Study (Test) of Three Cases in Cross-border Inbound Acquisitions , 2015 .

[4]  Michel Bacq,et al.  In small groups , 2014 .

[5]  Pedro Soto-Acosta,et al.  Determinants of Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge sharing in SMEs , 2014 .

[6]  Pedro Soto-Acosta,et al.  Web knowledge sharing and its effect on innovation: an empirical investigation in SMEs , 2014 .

[7]  Marianna Sigala,et al.  Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourism industry: An utilisation-importance analysis , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  T. Ramayah,et al.  Knowledge management practices and performance: are they truly linked? , 2013 .

[9]  Christina Hoon,et al.  Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Case Studies , 2012 .

[10]  Petra A. Nylund,et al.  Innovation as a Knowledge-Based Outcome , 2011, J. Knowl. Manag..

[11]  Lee Komito,et al.  Social media and migration: Virtual community 2.0 , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research , 2011 .

[13]  Joachim Hafkesbrink,et al.  Innovation 3.0: embedding into community knowledge - collaborative organizational learning beyond open innovation , 2011 .

[14]  Anu Puusa,et al.  Is Tacit Knowledge Really Tacit ? , 2010 .

[15]  R. Piekkari,et al.  The Case Study as Disciplinary Convention , 2009 .

[16]  Anabela Mesquita,et al.  Virtual communities of practice: investigating motivations and constraints in the processes of knowledge creation and transfer , 2009 .

[17]  Robert Godwin-Jones,et al.  Web-Writing 2.0: Enabling, Documenting, and Assessing Writing Online. , 2008 .

[18]  Gwo-Dong Chen,et al.  Users' attitudes toward Web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[19]  A. Amin,et al.  Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice , 2008 .

[20]  Roula Michaelides,et al.  Internet Communities and Open innovation: an Information System Design Methodology , 2007, 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS 2007).

[21]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Online communities of practice in education , 2007 .

[22]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[23]  Philip Uys,et al.  Identifying success factors of ICT in developing a learning community , 2007 .

[24]  S. Schwartz Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. , 2007 .

[25]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Coordinating Expertise Among Emergent Groups Responding to Disasters , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[26]  Willard Richardson,et al.  Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms , 2006 .

[27]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[28]  Mitsuru Kodama,et al.  New knowledge creation through leadership-based strategic community—a case of new product development in IT and multimedia business fields , 2005 .

[29]  Susan L. Morrow Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. , 2005 .

[30]  Mark Thompson,et al.  Structural and Epistemic Parameters in Communities of Practice , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[31]  Derek H.T. Walker,et al.  Community of Practice Software Management Tools: A UK Construction Company Case Study , 2005 .

[32]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[33]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  The experienced "sense" of a virtual community: characteristics and processes , 2004, DATB.

[34]  M. Barrett,et al.  Learning in Knowledge Communities:: Managing Technology and Context , 2004 .

[35]  Anita L. Blanchard Blogs as Virtual Communities: Identifying a Sense of Community in the Julie/Julia Project , 2004 .

[36]  Noriko Hara,et al.  Community of Practice: A Metaphor for Online Design? , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[37]  Bob Goodwin-Jones,et al.  Blogs and Wikis: Environments for On-Line Collaboration. , 2003 .

[38]  Alexander Ardichvili,et al.  Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice , 2003, J. Knowl. Manag..

[39]  J. Swan,et al.  The Construction of `Communities of Practice' in the Management of Innovation , 2002 .

[40]  H. Saint‐Onge,et al.  Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage , 2002 .

[41]  S. Wilson,et al.  The Anthropology of Online Communities , 2002 .

[42]  E. Wenger,et al.  Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge , 2002 .

[43]  Andrew Feenberg,et al.  Community Technology and Democratic Rationalization , 2002, Inf. Soc..

[44]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[45]  S. Jex,et al.  Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach , 2002 .

[46]  J. Brown,et al.  Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective , 2001 .

[47]  M. McLure Wasko,et al.  "It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice , 2000, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[48]  Alice Lam Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework , 2000 .

[49]  L. Gofton,et al.  Developing Focus Group Research. Politics, Theory and Practice. , 2000 .

[50]  K. Williams,et al.  From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. , 2000 .

[51]  E. Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier , 2000 .

[52]  Eric L. Lesser,et al.  Chapter 8 – Communities of Practice, Social Capital and Organizational Knowledge* , 2000 .

[53]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communities, A Comparative Analysis , 1999, Inf. Soc..

[54]  Anita L. Blanchard,et al.  Virtual Communities and Social Capital , 1998 .

[55]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizing Knowledge , 1998 .

[56]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[57]  E. Wenger Communities of practice: learning as a social system , 1998 .

[58]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[59]  Lee Komito,et al.  The Net as a Foraging Society: Flexible Communities , 1998, Inf. Soc..

[60]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[61]  Doug Schuler,et al.  New community networks - wired for change , 1996 .

[62]  P. Kollock,et al.  Managing the virtual commons : Cooperation and conflict in computer communities , 1996 .

[63]  M. Sandelowski Sample size in qualitative research. , 1995, Research in nursing & health.

[64]  R. Wageman Interdependence and Group Effectiveness , 1995 .

[65]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How , 1995 .

[66]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[67]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[68]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[69]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[70]  R. Weber Basic Content Analysis , 1986 .

[71]  E. Lawler,et al.  Behavior in Organizations , 1986 .

[72]  Edward A. Mabry,et al.  The dynamics of small group communication , 1980 .

[73]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[74]  B. Bass Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. , 1960 .

[75]  F. H. Hankins,et al.  The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .