Community of Practice WORKSHOP SIGECAD’05 J une 28, 2005

1. Community of PracticeWORKSHOP SIGECAD’05 June 28, 2005

2. Organizational Committee • Michel Grundstein (Consulting Engineer and Associated Researcher at LAMSADE) • Takaya Kawamura (Associate Professor at Graduate School of Business, Osaka City University in Osaka, Japan) • Philippe Lorino (Full Professor at ESSEC Graduate Business School in Management Control) • Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux (Full Professor at Dauphine University, Paris IX )

3. Contributors • Eric Laurent : Laposte  • Romuald Messina : Air Liquide  • Martin Roulleaux-Dugage : Schneider Electric

4. Participants • PHD studentsSIGECAD Group, Paris Dauphine University, Master Degree • ESSEC • Graduate School of Business, Osaka City University in Osaka, Japan

5. SIGECAD SEMINAR • A first approach, focussed on the codification of explicit, stable and well defined knowledge (i.e. generally speaking scientific and technical knowledge), coming under the implementation of computer tools and data bases. • A second approach, focused on exchanging sharing tacit and dynamic knowledge (i.e. generally speaking organisational knowledge), coming under network functioning and leading of community of practices (CoP). • A third approach, focused on the company’s performances, coming under decision processes, learning processes and competences management. Moreover, we noticed the essential role of Information Technologies (IT), which are at the same time: • A support to the company’s activities • Productive of technical and rigid organizational infrastructures • A factor of fundamental break in our relationship to space, time, knowledge, reality perception and the world of material objects.

6. PROBLEMATIC OF THE WORKSHOP SIGECAD’05 “Management of activities and processes that enhance creation and utilization of knowledge within an organization, aim at two strongly linked goals: a patrimony goal and a sustainable innovation goal with economic and strategic, organizational, socio-cultural and technological underlying dimensions”.

7. PLANNING • 9h30 – 9h45 Introduction Professor Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux et Michel Grundstein • 9h45 - 10h30 Intervention Eric Laurent (La poste) • 10h30-11h Coffee break • 11h - 11h45 Intervention Martin Roulleau Dugage (Schneider Electric) • 11h45 - 12h30 InterventionRomuald Messina (Air Liquide) • 12h30- 14h Lunch • 14h- 14h30 Professor Takaya Kawamura (Graduate School of Business, Osaka City University, Japan) • 14h30- 15h30 Chairman discussion Professor Philippe Lorino • 15h30-16h Coffee break • 16h-17h Synthesis

8. Definition of Community of PracticeAccording to Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) « Community of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problem, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis. …These people don’t necessarily work together every day, but they may meet because they find value in their interactions. As they spend time together, they typically share information, insight and advice. They help each other solve problems. They discuss their situations, their aspirations, and their needs. They ponder common issues, explore ideas, and act as sounding boards. They may create tools, standards, generic designs, manuals, and other documents – or they may simply develop a tacit understanding that they share. However they accumulate knowledge, they become informally bound by the value that they find in learning together. This value is not merely instrumental for their work. It also accrues in the personal satisfaction of knowing colleagues who understand each other’s perspectives and of belonging to an interesting group of people. Overtime, they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge, practices, and approaches. They also develop personal relationships and established ways of interacting. They may even develop a common sense of identity. They become a community of practice. »

9. QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS Definition of CoP • Do you think there are CoPs in your company, following the definition given by Wenger ? • What are the differences and/or merits of fostering the concept “CoP” instead of using other concepts as “teamwork”, “project team”, “task force” or “autonomous work group” … in your company?

10. CoP and organizationRelationships Of communities to official organizations

11. QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS CoP and organizationRelationships Of communities to official organizations Following these typologies, which kind of relationship between CoP and your organization do you identify in your company ? Advantage and drawback of : Formal recognition by the business organization of CoP ? Formal institutionalization in the business organization of CoP ? Formal evaluation the business organization of CoP ?

12. QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS CoP and strategy • Are CoPs recognized and treated as strategic resources in your company ? • Are some specific perspectives of CoPs integrated in the process of establishing organizational strategy? • Do you think that cultivating CoP at the interorganizational project team provide a new solution to the well-known problem of “competition and cooperation” among organization involved? How the result of innovation achieved by the interorganizational CoP be shared and distributed?