Communities of implementation

The concept of communities of practice (CoPs) has rapidly gained ground in fields such as knowledge management and organisational learning since it was first identified by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Brown and Duguid (1991). In this article, we consider a related concept that we have entitled “communities of implementation.” Communities of implementation (CoIs) are similar to communities of practice in that they offer an opportunity for a collection of individuals to support each other and share knowledge in a dynamic environment and on a topic in which they share interest. In addition, and to differentiate them from CoPs, a community of implementation extends the responsibilities of a CoP by having as its focus the implementation of a programme of change. This may well extend to designing the change programme. Thus, whereas a main purpose of a CoP is to satisfy “a real need to know what each other knows” (Skyrme, 1999) in an informal way, we argue that a main purpose of a community of implementation is to “pool individual knowledge (including contacts and ways of getting things done) to stimulate collective enthusiasm in order to take more informed purposeful action for which the members are responsible.” Individual and collective responsibility and accountability for successfully implementing the actions/change programme is a key feature of a community of implementation. Without these pressures the members might lower the priority of implementation, allowing competing priorities to dominate their attention and resources. Without responsibility and accountability, the result is likely to be (at best) an organisation which has not begun a change programme, or (at worst) an organisation which is stuck halfway through another failing initiative. To achieve these additional objectives beyond those of a CoP, the CoI needs to provide heightened support to its members. In fact often the members will collectively strategise the development and implementation of the change programme they are leading in the organisation. Other concepts similar to CoPs have appeared in the literature, for example “communities of knowing” (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995), but none have a specific focus on implementation. Perhaps the closest example of a CoI, as suggested by our definition, is reported by Karsten, Lyytinen, Hurskainen, and Koskelainen (2001) who describe a CoP in a paper machinery manufacturer which seems to have the necessary focus on implementation. The theoretical aspects of this article will explore the relationship between CoPs and CoIs, and the needs for different arrangements for a CoI. The practical aspect of this article will consist of a report on a case study of a CoI that was successful in its implementation of a programme of change that aimed to improve its organisation’s knowledge management activities. Over two years the CoI implemented a suite of complementary actions across the organisation. These actions transformed the organisation and moved it towards achieving its ‘core values’ and overall objectives. The article will explore: the activities that formed and gelled the community, the role of the community in the implementation of actions, and experiences from key members of this community on its success and potential improvements.

Negative brand personality:the construct, its antecedents and outcome variables

By evolving brands and building on the importance of self-expression, Aaker (1997) developed the brand personality framework as a means to understand brand-consumer relationships. The brand personality framework captures the core values and characteristics described in human personality research in an attempt to humanize brands. Although influential across many streams of brand personality research, the current conceptualization of brand personality only offers a positively-framed approach. To date, no research, both conceptually and empirically, has thoroughly incorporated factors reflective of Negative Brand Personality, despite the fact that almost all researchers in personality are in agreement that factors akin to Extraversion (positive) and Neuroticism (negative) should be in a comprehensive personality scale to accommodate consumers’ expressions. As a result, the study of brand personality is only half complete since the current research trend is to position brand personality under brand image. However, with the brand personality concept being confused with brand identity at the empirical stage, factors reflective of Negative Brand Personality have been neglected. Accordingly, this thesis extends the current conceptualization of brand personality by demarcating the existing typologies of desirable brand personality and incorporating the characteristics reflective of consumers’ discrepant self-meaning to provide a more complete understanding of brand personality. However, it is not enough to interpret negative factors as the absence of positive factors. Negative factors reflect consumers’ anxious and frustrated feelings. Therefore, this thesis contributes to the current conceptualization of brand personality by, firstly, presenting a conceptual definition of Negative Brand Personality in order to provide a theoretical basis for the development of a Negative Brand Personality scale, then, secondly, identifying what constitutes Negative Brand Personality and to what extent consumers’ cognitive dissonance explains the nature of Negative Brand Personality, and, thirdly, ascertaining the impact Negative Brand Personality has on attitudinal constructs, namely: Negative Attitude, Detachment, Brand Loyalty and Satisfaction, which have proven to predict behaviors such as choice and (re-)purchasing. In order to deliver on the three main contributions, two comprehensive studies were conducted to a) develop a valid, parsimonious, yet relatively short measure of Negative Brand Personality, and b) ascertain how the Negative Brand Personality measure behaves within a network of related constructs. The mixed methods approach, grounded in theoretical and empirical development, provides evidence to suggest that there are four factors to Negative Brand Personality and, tested through use of a structural equation modeling technique, that these are influenced by Brand Confusion, Price Unfairness, Self- Incongruence and Corporate Hypocrisy. Negative Brand Personality factors mainly determined Consumers Negative Attitudes and Brand Detachment. The research contributes to the literature on brand personality by improving the consumer-brand relationship by means of engaging in a brandconsumer conversation in order to reduce consumers’ cognitive strain. The study concludes with a discussion on the theoretical and practical implications of the findings, its limitations, and potential directions for future research.