I'm not sure what you mean in #2 by "trends in the development of CoPs". If you mean longitudinal studies of CoPS over time, then I'm not aware of any that use the CoP lens - though, of course, nowadays just about *any* longitudinal study of organisational units could be characterized as a CoP study. I would very much like to know myself if you find any.

If you mean where the theory is going, then at the risk of stating the obvious, you'd certainly want to start with what appears to be Etienne Wenger's current focus: Learning for a small planet: a research agenda; 2004. www.ewenger.com/research/index.htm

The one thing that kept me at least "lurking" in "Uncle Jerry's" AOK was the promise of a STAR session with Wenger in Oct. But that idea got suspended, with the STAR sessions, Sept. 1; somehow , Jerry found that discussion was waning.

Dave

this one might interest you (ironically from the home of six sigma)

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/28/ge.html
The General Electric plant in Durham, North Carolina builds some of the world's most powerful jet engines. But the plant's real power lies in the lessons that it teaches about the future of work and about workplace democracy.

http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/berkman_traci_fenton_on_organi_1.html

The references go back a few years but the plant is still operating whether anything has changed or not I'm not sure.

Dermot

Hi Dave! RE: #2, I am not sure where the comments came from on whether CoPs been dead with the arrival of social software or not, but in my experience, it's quite the opposite. Social Computing is what most CoPs have been waiting for a long while now. And a small proof of that the recent presentation I did with a couple of my colleagues at the APQC KM & Innovation event in May 2007 in Houston on how those CoPs are making use of social software to drive innovation both by collaborating amongst community members and customers / business partners. You will find the blog post on it over here, and also notice you can check out the slide deck directly on Slideshare. Feel free to pass on my name / contact details if folks would want some further details. Cheers!

Another one that you might find interesting is the down management style used by the Timpson retail chain in the UK.
http://www.timpson.co.uk/
They don't have exactly a self organizing structure like W.L.Gore, but they are remarkably rule free allowing for decentralization of power and emergence.

Re #1 a very well-publicised - self-publicity by the majority shareholder Ricardo Semler, as well as quite a few articles and case-studies - example is Semco in Sao Paulo.

I have heard of a law firm on the Gold Coast in Australia that is organised on similar ideas, but I haven't been able to find their name yet, sadly.

A while back Miguel Cornejo Castro wrote a series of papers on trends in CoPs - he argues that the "traditional" CoP model is loosening and "conversational spaces" are opeing up within and between communities
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2713

Dave,

on point #2, CoPs are generating a lot of interest in the local government sector (UK), and are supporting a number of service and efficiency programs. The CoP platform managed by the Improvement & Development Agency (www.communities.idea.gov.uk) has grown from zero to 4,800 registered users, and 160 CoPs in 12 months. Approx 4 new CoPs are created each week, and nearly all councils (400+) are members of at least one CoP. I also agree with comments from Luis Suarez, in that social media apps are providing the fuel for the (CoP) furnace. So, in my experience, CoPs are still very much a growth area, but particularly in the public sector.

Thanks for posting this, Dave, and interesting to see so many quick responses - I am exploring the 'CoPs and social technologies' question in preparation of a course on 'knowledge networks' we're teaching here at the Vrije Universiteit (A'dam), but it is also a personal research interest. I saw the paper which Patrick refers to and indeed this is the only thing I came across which comes close. Maybe some more context as to why (I think) this is worth exploring, also in response to Keith's question.

CoPs have received a huge amount of attention both in practice and in academic literature over the past 10 years as a mechanism to implement knowledge management/facilitate knowledge sharing. Whether this has been an effective approach remains to be seen, evidence does continue to be mostly anecdotal. Even so, with the advent of 'web 2.0' tools some people (eg Dave Snowden, Nancy White) are positing that perhaps people don't need to engage in CoPs anymore to fulfill their knowledge needs - they can mash-up applications and have 'knowledge nuggets' delivered to their virtual doorstep without ever venturing out. I can't remember where I read this but someone claimed that the more connected a person is, the less he/she is likely to engage in CoPs, in this new scenario.

My first response to this was similar to that of Luis, namely that people would feel the need to engage *more* in order to deepen their knowledge in a particular domain, now that 'knowledge' sources are more dispersed; however now I am actually wondering whether this is truly the case, and that a new form of networking will emerge that is much more individualistic.

Anyway - still very interested to know if there are any other bits of research or any formal publications on this topic, esp. in view of what the effect of this will be on organizations, and how/whether this 'trend' will in fact emerge... Because it could have major consequences on KM practice and theory, not to mention epistemologies: upsetting the whole concept of the 'practice-based', community view on organizational knowledge (Brown and Duguid etc.).

ps. Keith: I quite like Mark Thompson's 2005 study of CoPs (Organization Science Vol. 16.2), in which he explores the balance between 'seeding' and 'controlling' structures. It is based on a longitudinal case-study of 16 months in a 'global IT and services organization'.

Coming a little late to the party, but Mary Poppendieck posted this to the Lean Software Development list a little while ago.

        From: "Mary Poppendieck" 
        Date: 14 October 2007 14:27:35 BDT
        To: <leandevelopment@yahoogroups.com>

I'm beginning to think that the idea of company-wide standards appears when you have monolithic organizational structures. 3M, Gore, Semler, and - I now discover - the Pennsylvania Railroad, all had/have small independent business units rather than a single monolithic business unit. The Pennsylvania Railroad was universally recognized as the best run railroad of the 1800's - by far. It had 3 separate divisions, each with less than 2000 miles of track to manage. The person who designed this 'decentralized' structure for the Pennsylvania railroad theorized that it might have higher management costs, but it would result in better management decisions because managers were closer to and more involved in the business. He was absolutely correct.

In such 'decentralized' organizations, there is no concept of standard processes across the company except in a very few centralized areas. In 3M, the centralized areas were finance, personnel, purchasing, and capital equipment and facilities construction. Everything else was local. Although processes were more or less similar across the company (good practices spread because people moved around), there was not much interest in standard processes across the company. Certainly there was not a standard process (while I was there) in areas of core competence such as product commercialization. And yet, all divisions had more or less similar product commercialization processes, with differences stemming from the type of business or product.

All that have contributed to the Self-Organizing Organization question, please accept my deepest appreciation and thanks.

Ron Shafer