Proposition 82 Surveying Communities of Practice - … · Proposition 82 Surveying Communities of Practice In a Word Surveys are used to ﬁnd promising opportunities for improvement;

Proposition 82Surveying Communities of Practice

In a Word Surveys are used to find promising opportunities for improvement;identify, create a consensus about, and act on issues to be addressed; record abaseline from which progress can be measured; motivate change efforts; and pro-vide two-way communication between stakeholders. Healthy communities ofpractice leverage survey instruments to mature into influence structures that demandor are asked to assume influential roles in their host organizations.

Define: Communities of Practice

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then youand I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea andwe exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

—George Bernard Shaw

Communities of practice (CoPs or communities) are groups of like-minded,interacting people who filter, amplify, invest and provide, convene, build, and learnand facilitate to ensure more effective creation and sharing of knowledge in their

© Asian Development Bank 2017O. Serrat, Knowledge Solutions, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_82

745

domain. They define themselves according to their focus, how they function, andwhat capabilities they produce.

There are six key dimensions to a CoP: (i) domain, (ii) community, (iii) practice,(iv) motivation, (v) structure, and (vi) mandate. A domain is a defined area ofshared inquiry (often with a sector or thematic focus) and a community refers to therelationships among active members and the sense of belonging and identity thatmembership provides. Practice refers to the body of knowledge and informationused by the CoP; each member has expertise in the domain and this is recognizedby other members. Motivation refers to the personal interest and priority thatmembers are willing to commit to the CoP in their work plans and work activities.Structure describes the balance of formal and informal relationships and ways ofworking. (Hierarchy is not an important characteristic of CoPs: the status of themembers is measured by the value of the contributions they make to the commu-nity.) Finally, mandate refers to the priority that management of the host organi-zation, where there is one, ascribing to the CoP and the resource implications theyare willing to commit; it defines the sector or thematic focus and the expectedresults of the community and helps generate the space for individual commitmentby the members.

Typically, CoPs comprise a core group, an inner circle, and an outer circle. Thecore group manages the CoP based on an agreed coordination mandate. It providessecretarial support as necessary. The inner circle serves as a steering committeewith an informal structure, meeting once or twice a year. Together, the core groupand the inner circle form the “active group” of the community—its source of energyand direction. The outer circle embraces interested members, contributors, andreaders in a loose network.

On ADB’s Communities of Practice

I offer you peace. I offer you love. I offer you friendship. I see your beauty. I hearyour need. I feel your feelings. My wisdom flows from the Highest Source. I salutethat Source in you. Let us work together for unity and love.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

In light of their potential contribution to organizational development, ADBdecided to promote well-functioning CoPs in 2002, from the time of ADB’sreorganization. ADB’s (2008) long-term strategic framework cited them as apowerful collaboration mechanism for internal learning. Their mandate is to con-tribute or advise on (i) general strategic directions in priority sectors and themes ofADB; (ii) ADB-wide sector and thematic work, including inputs to related sectorand thematic reports; (iii) ADB-wide knowledge products and services, including

746 82 Surveying Communities of Practice

good practices, and technical and flagship publications; and (iv) staffing issues,including the skills mix in ADB and staff participation in external learning events.

“Unless … commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes, but noplan,” said Peter Drucker. However, committing is contingent on knowing the stateof affairs. A first-ever survey of ADB-hosted CoPs (2009a) conducted by ADB’sKnowledge Management Center revealed that

• CoPs represent areas of common interest, usually (but not always) have cleardomains, provide a welcome social environment and give staff members a senseof belonging, help build relationships, and benefit daily work.

• CoPs are driven by willingness to participate, motivate members to sharework-related knowledge, but do not always build up communal resources.

• CoPs break down communication barriers among staff members but commu-nication platforms are not very user-friendly.

• CoPs do not leverage knowledge management tools particularly well.• The contribution of CoPs to accomplish better results in projects and economic

and sector work can be improved.• Linkages to country partnership strategies and policy work are weak.• CoPs deliver unevenly on knowledge management–related functions, viz.,

strategy development, management techniques, collaboration mechanisms,knowledge capture and storage, and knowledge sharing and learning.

• A dedicated and passionate facilitator is considered most important to success,together with building trust, rapport, and a sense of community.

• Opinions diverge widely regarding the six functions of CoPs, but convening andlearning and facilitating are deemed to be what the CoPs hosted by ADB arebest at.

• Participation is severely limited by lack of time and incentives.• The motivation to participate calls for a wide mix of incentives, with an accent

on opportunities for learning and development and staying currently in one’ssector or theme.

• Involving external partners would help generate and share knowledge.• ADB’s approach (business processes) to CoPs is flexible.

The 2009 survey concluded that, notwithstanding their good work, (i) CoPs hadlimited outreach to all staff, especially those in ADB’s resident missions and rep-resentative offices; (ii) the budget for staff development and knowledge sharing waslimited; and (iii) there was a need to realign the work and mandates of CoPs withStrategy 2020.

The great end of knowledge is not knowledge, but action.

—Thomas Henry Huxley

On ADB’s Communities of Practice 747

On 31 July 2009, Haruhiko Kuroda—ADB President and concurrentChairperson of ADB’s Board of Directors (2009b)—approved EnhancingKnowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009–2011,detailing actions/outputs to advance the knowledge management agenda underStrategy 2020 (ADB 2004). Of particular interest is the second pillar of the actionplan, which supports initiatives that promote and empower CoPs to act as drivers ofchange, promote exchange of ideas and good practices, and upgrade technical skillsamong peers.

The 2009 review of CoPs triggered four key proposals to empower the com-munities under the action plan

1. Ensure that CoPs become an integral part of ADB’s business processes.Supervisors should fully support both professional and national staff (includingthose in resident missions and representative offices) to participate in thecommunities, with the staff’s contributions recognized more vigorously in thePerformance and Development Plan exercise. Management will provide suffi-cient time for the chairs of the committees to perform their functions for theCoPs.

Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision; the ability to directindividual accomplishment toward organizational objectives. It is the fuel that allowscommon people to attain uncommon results.

—Andrew Carnegie

2. Increase the budget of the CoPs, based on a clear set of objectives, and, mostimportantly, measurable “outcomes” of improved knowledge management.Increased budgets will be allocated clearly, directly, and explicitly in proportionto how practical and tangible knowledge management occurs. This will be acase of “output-based financing,” rewarding those who generate and shareuseful and usable knowledge. CoPs with vague or input- and/or process-focusedproposals will not be funded. This will entail revising the current purpose andstructure of the biannual sector and thematic reports.

3. Require the CoPs to more purposefully engage in external partnershipsincluding especially the regional knowledge hubs that ADB finances. (Engagingnon-regional knowledge hubs is to be considered as well.)

4. The role of the knowledge management coordinators in ADB will be reviewedand ways to harness their knowledge, skills, experience, and interests in theform of a CoP in knowledge management will be proposed.

In the wake of the 2009 survey, ADB’s support to communities improved asevidenced by increased budgets, streamlined sector, and thematic reporting,improved participation in peer reviews of country partnership strategies and lendingproducts, strengthened collaboration between and among CoPs, increased recog-nition of staff knowledge and expertise, and expanded outreach to stakeholders.Considering these milestones, a follow-up review of the performance of CoPs was


needed to identify ways to further improve performance, as well as challenges andopportunities ahead.1 ADB (2011) launched a second survey of ADB-hosted CoPs.(The total membership had by then reached 1,558.) A total of 207 CoP membersand 68 non-CoP members completed the survey out of a total staff complement of2,705 as of 30 June 2010. (In 2009, the number of responses for CoP members was77 and for non-CoP members, 30. This shows a significant growth rate in responsesbetween 2009 and 2011 of 268% for CoP members, and 226% for non-CoPmembers (Table 82.1).

Table 82.1 Membership ofADB-hosted CoPs, March2011

Agriculture, rural development, and food security 75

Education 41

Energy 171

Environment 110

Financial sector development 196

Gender equity 100

Social development and poverty 246

Governance and public management 93

Health 24

Regional cooperation and integration 26

Transport 147

Urban 115

Water 214

Total CoP membership 1,558Source ADB (2011)Note Some individuals were members of more than onecommunity so the number does not represent the number ofindividuals involved in CoPs

1Two other important initiatives also examined knowledge management more widely in ADB(2010a, b), with implications for CoPs. First, the sixth in a series of Most Admired KnowledgeEnterprise (MAKE) surveys, conducted in 2010, confirmed positive trends in knowledge man-agement in ADB. Survey findings were benchmarked against the eight recognized MAKEknowledge performance dimensions. To note, Dimension 5 refers to developing CoPs as one ofeight drivers for “Creating an environment for collaborative knowledge sharing”. Dimension 6refers to developing CoPs as one of nine drivers for “Creating a learning organization”. Second,the results of the new Learning for Change survey, introduced in 2010, also bore implications forunderstanding CoPs in ADB. The survey examined characteristics of the four main subsystems ofknowledge management, namely, organization, people, knowledge, and technology, but from theperspective of organizational learning. CoPs span all four subsystems in ADB: they form part ofthe organizational infrastructure for learning and knowledge management; they engage people inlearning communities; they provide a space for members to identify, create, store, share, and useknowledge; and finally, they harness information and communications technology for the purposesof learning and improving organizational effectiveness.

On ADB’s Communities of Practice 749

The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice:Survey Design

At the time of the 2011 survey, ADB had 13 CoPs2 in key sector and thematic areas(domains). The survey design reproduced, with minor amendments, the survey ofCoPs conducted in 2009. This was done to facilitate the comparison of responsesacross the two surveys.

Separate online questionnaires were used to elicit responses from those whoparticipate as members of CoPs and those who do not. The questionnaire for CoPmembers comprised three sections. Section I (questions 1–24) examined therespondents’ view of the purpose and utility of CoP activities. Section II (question25) elicited recommendations for strengthening CoP effectiveness, and Section III(questions 28–31) was used to develop a profile of CoP members. The question-naire for non-CoP members comprised nine questions. Using similar wording formost of the questions made it possible to compare the views of members andnon-members.

The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice:Methodology

Data the survey was collected on 4–25 February 2011 using a web-based ques-tionnaire. The survey was widely advertised on ADB Today, ADB’s dailye-newsletter. Data analysis was conducted in March–April 2011. During the dataanalysis, comparisons were made between the 2009 and 2011 survey results andbetween the 2011 responses from CoP members and non-CoP members. Thequantitative data generated by the questions was plotted on bar charts that usedpercentage response rates to facilitate comparison between the 2009 and 2011surveys. The responses to free form questions provide a rich source of views andideas. Because qualitative data is more challenging to analyze, particular effortswere made to interpret this data. Responses to free form questions were clusteredunder headings generated by close examination of the responses. The headingswere developed by first examining the responses of CoP members then applying thesame headings to cluster the responses of the non-CoP members. In this way, directcomparisons could be made between the two groups.

2This has now increased to 14 CoPs with the recent addition of a community on public–privatepartnerships.


The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice:Analytical Framework

Three “lenses” were used to analyze and interpret the data collected in the survey.These were areas of inquiry, critical success factors, and the “CoP Fitness Test”.

The survey was designed to address eight areas of inquiry as follows:

• the extent of participation in CoPs• insights into the clarity of domains• perceptions of the value added by CoPs• success factors• insights into the varying possible functions of CoPs• dimensions of participation in CoPs• perceptions of ADB’s approach to CoPs• recommendations to strengthen CoP effectiveness.

The areas of inquiry formed the main headings for examining the survey find-ings. They were enhanced by references to critical success factors and “CoP FitnessTest” headings and questions.

Research on CoPs has identified a number of factors critical to their success. Theanalysis of survey findings clustered these under three headings: (i) community,(ii) organization, and (iii) functions (Table 82.2).

In a valuable contribution to the field of study of CoPs, the KnowledgeManagement Center introduced the idea of communities passing a fitness test. Thetest refers to a series of questions under eight headings: (i) domain, (ii) membership,(iii) norms and rules, (iv) structure and process, (v) flow of energy, (vi) results,(vii) resources, and (viii) values. Although the survey was not designed to explicitlyanswer all fitness test questions, these questions provided a useful analyticalframework and were used to structure some of the concluding remarks in the report(Table 82.3).

Table 82.2 Critical success factors for communities of practice

Community Organization Functions

• A domain that energizes thecore group and inner circle

• Skillful and reputablemanagers and facilitators

• Clearly defined roles,particularly in the core groupand inner circle

• Involvement of members• The details of practice areaddressed

• Regularity and mix ofactivities

• Strategic relevance of thedomain

• Management sponsorship(withoutmicromanagement)

• Integration of CoP withorganization’s businessprocesses

• Judicious mix of formaland informal structures

• Adequate resources• Consistent attitude

• Clearly delineatedfunctions

• Capacities, skills,resources, and systemsmatch functions

• Recognition given forachievement of functions

Source Author

The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities … 751

The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice:Observations on Survey Design

The survey provided a valuable overview of the operation of CoPs in ADB.However, the survey design limits the opportunities to examine and understand thework of individual communities in-depth. This is because the responses of somerespondents who belong to more than one community refer to all the CoPs to whichthey belong. So, for example, it is not possible to identify how respondentsinvolved as members of particular CoPs scored those communities on the questionswith five-point scales. The benefits of using a consistent survey are considerable asthis enables year-on-year comparisons. One way of gaining a more in-depth insightinto the communities without sacrificing the ability to make year-on-year com-parisons would be to use the same survey questions but ask the respondents tospecify which CoP they will be using when considering their answers.

Table 82.3 The “CoP Fitness Test” headings and questions

Domain • Are the area of shared inquiry, the key issues that relate to it, and thefunction(s) of the CoP strategically relevant to ADB?

• Are the topics of interest to all members?• Do all members have their own practice in the domain?

Membership • Is the relevant experience on board?• Is the heterogeneity of the members assured?• Is the CoP open to new members and advertised as such?

Norms and rules • Are roles and accountabilities defined in a common agreement?• Are both distant contacts and face-to-face meetings possible?• What is the balance between giving and taking among members?

Structure andprocess

• Is the chosen structure clear and flexible enough?• Are key roles in the core group defined, e.g., manager, facilitator, andback-stopper?

• Is the step-by-step work planning process open and transparent?

Flow of energy • Do members care about common interests, commitment, and trust?• Are there regular face-to-face events? Are social moments celebrated?• Is the history of the CoP alive and shared with new members?

Results • Is delivering and reporting on tangible results a common concern?• Do members draw direct and practical benefits from their involvement?• Are results officially recognized by ADB?

Resources • Do members have sufficient time for the CoP?• Is ADB willing to provide time, space, and incentives?• Is CoP facilitation attractive and stimulating?

Values • Is listening to others a cardinal virtue?• Are members willing to give without immediate return?• Is diversity in thinking and practice validated?

Source Author


The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice:Observations on In-Depth Understanding

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiledin a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you willwin one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will beimperiled in every single battle.

—Sun Tzu

Fortunately, the annual reports of individual CoPs provide in-depth under-standing of their ways of working, achievements, and overall effectiveness. CoPshave been encouraged to produce annual and triennial reports on their work sinceDecember 2009. To date, not all communities have produced both sets of reports,but those that have provided valuable data and detailed analyses of the CoP’smodus operandi. An analysis of the annual and triennial reports of individualcommunities was beyond the scope of survey but a brief examination of a samplerevealed some useful insights about how communities operate in the pursuit ofADB’s mission and objectives. A systematic examination of CoP reports wouldenable benchmarking and would ensure that some comparability (using, forexample, critical success factors) between CoP outcomes exists.

The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice:Observations on Benchmarking and Peer Learning

Given the ability of some communities to create the success factors critical foreffective working, a valuable body of experience can clearly provide benchmarksfor all CoPs in ADB. This is not to say that those CoPs working successfully shouldbe used as role models for all communities. Domain, context, and other factorsshould be taken into account when designing and running a CoP. However, in thespirit of a learning organization, ADB’s home-grown CoP expertise can provide aunique source of knowledge about how best to leverage value from its communi-ties. This expertise could undoubtedly be more widely applied across all CoPsthrough more focused benchmarking process. One way of doing this might be toestablish an annual “forum on learning” in which CoPs would share their successstories, identify how best to implement success factors, and celebrate achievements.

The 2011 Survey of ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice … 753

Did ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice Passthe Fitness Test?

You would fain be victor at the Olympic games, you say. Yes, but weigh the con-ditions, weigh the consequences; then and then only, lay to your hand—if it be foryour profit. You must live by rule, submit to diet, abstain from dainty meats, exerciseyour body perforce at stated hours, in heat or in cold; drink no cold water, nor, itmay be, wine. In a word, you must surrender yourself wholly to your trainer, asthough to a physician.

—Epictetus

• Domain The areas of shared inquiry and the function of CoPs have varyingdegrees of relevance to ADB’s strategic priorities. The topics of some com-munities are of undoubted interest to their members. Other CoPs are less able toinspire interest though this may be due to issues of weak community leadershipor being unable or unwilling to prioritize time for participation rather than aninherently uninteresting topic. It was not possible to ascertain from the surveywhether all the members have their own practice in the respective domains.

• Membership It is difficult to ascertain from the 2011 survey if all the necessaryrelevant experience is available to all the CoPs. However, as this was not raisedas a concern by any respondents, it is reasonable to assume that all communitieshave access to the relevant experience they need. Broadening the diversity ofmembership by including ADB’s partners is worthy of further consideration asis the need to improve staff awareness of communities, and thereby extendingaccess to CoPs.

• Norms and Rules The conduct of some communities seems to be very wellorganized but this does not appear to be true of all CoPs. Some respondentsexpressed satisfaction about the nature and frequency of contact in their CoPswhereas others, particularly those members based in resident missions, wouldwelcome more opportunities to participate. It is difficult to ascertain the balancebetween giving to and taking from CoPs but active membership of a communitysuggests that members receive enough from their involvement to justify theirparticipation. There are enough positive comments about membership to suggestthat this is the case for many communities.

• Structure and Process Each community has the flexibility to choose andmodify its own structure. Some CoP members referred to weak leadership oroverly controlling leadership while others praised the work of their core groups.Members described the planning process for some communities as weak or, insome cases, nonexistent.

• Flow of Energy The responses to the 2011 survey demonstrated that 207 peoplecare enough about their communities and their evolution in the future to have


completed an online questionnaire. According to some members, face-to-faceevents do not happen regularly enough in their CoPs and, by definition, suchevents are not accessible to those who are located away from head office. Somecommunities need to be more creative about ways of engaging members inshared activity by learning from the experience of those that have successfullyachieved the involvement of remote members.

• Results Respondents had very different ideas about what results their CoPs wereaiming to achieve. Some viewed these mainly in organizational terms whileothers explained results more in terms of professional and career development.The two are, of course, not mutually exclusive; indeed one of the strengths ofCoPs should be their ability to deliver different types of results. The responses toquestions 13–15 suggest that communities are under-functioning in their abilityto help individuals achieve better results. Nevertheless, members who respondedto the survey report tangible benefits of their involvement in CoPs. To under-stand the detailed results of specific communities, it is necessary to examinetheir annual reports.

• Resources Many members identified time as the main obstacle to theirinvolvement in CoPs. In the view of many respondents, ADB appears to givemixed messages about the use of their time in communities. While officiallysanctioned and even encouraged, the experience reported by some respondentswas that their managers appeared lukewarm in their support of time spent onCoPs. At the time of the survey, this tension was exacerbated because some ofADB’s human resource systems seemed to be misaligned with ADB’s officialcommitment to CoPs. However, with the recent introduction of the new TimeManagement System, time spent on CoP activity (such as management and peerreview) is now officially recognized. CoP facilitation varies from stimulating tobeing in need of injection of fresh ideas. The potential for peer learning here isconsiderable.

• Values Because the absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence ofabsence, it was not possible to comment on the “CoP Fitness Test” questionsconcerning CoP values.

Conclusions

ADB’s investment in CoPs, particularly since 2009, has brought about a positivechange in the way they are perceived by both members and non-members. The2011 survey of ADB-hosted CoPs shows ample evidence that ADB is reaping thebenefits of its investment. With greater sharing of experience between communities,the value they bring to ADB’s core business is likely to increase. CoPs have beencharacterized as the “heart and soul” of knowledge sharing in ADB. The results ofthe survey showed that both heart and soul are gaining in vigor.

Did ADB-Hosted Communities of Practice Pass the Fitness Test? 755

Box 1: 2011 Survey of ADB’s Communities of Practice: Survey Questionnairefor CoP Members


Conclusions 757


Conclusions 759


Box 2: 2011 Survey of ADB’s Communities of Practice: Survey Questionnairefor Non-CoP Members

Conclusions 761


References

ADB (2004) Knowledge management in ADB. ManilaADB (2008) Strategy 2020: the long-term strategic framework of the Asian development bank

(2008–2020). ManilaADB (2009a) Strengthening communities of practice in ADB. ManilaADB (2009b) Enhancing knowledge management strategies under strategy 2020: plan of action

for 2009–2011. ManilaADB (2010a) Assessment of ADB’s knowledge management implementation framework. ManilaADB (2010b) Learning for change survey. ManilaADB (2011) Survey of ADB-hosted communities of practice. Manila

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the Asian Development Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial 3.0 IGO license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/)which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in anymedium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the Asian Development Bank, providea link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.Any dispute related to the use of the works of the Asian Development Bank that cannot be

settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of theAsian Development Bank’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of theAsian Development Bank’s logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement betweenthe Asian Development Bank and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license.Note that the link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license.The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative

Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is notincluded in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted bystatutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly fromthe copyright holder.

Conclusions 763

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/

Documents

Proposition 82 Surveying Communities of Practice - … · Proposition 82 Surveying Communities of Practice In a Word Surveys are used to ﬁnd promising opportunities for improvement;