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.

Processed 2 minutes-averaged continuous VM-ADCP (vessel-mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler) profiles during POLARSTERN cruise ANT-XXVIII/3

This data set was obtained during the R. V. POLARSTERN cruise ANT-XXVIII/3. Current velocities were measured nearly continuously when outside territorial waters along the ship's track with a vessel-mounted TRD Instruments' 153.6-kHz Ocean Surveyor ADCP. The transducers were located 11 m below the water line and were protected against ice floes by an acoustically transparent plastic window. The current measurements were made using a pulse of 2s and vertical bin length of 4 m. The ship's velocity was calculated from position fixes obtained by the Global Positioning System (GPS). Heading, roll and pitch data from the ship's gyro platforms and the navigation data were used to convert the ADCP velocities into earth coordinates. Accuracy of the ADCP velocities mainly depends on the quality of the position fixes and the ship's heading data. Further errors stem from a misalignment of the transducer with the ship's centerline. The ADCP data were processed using the Ocean Surveyor Sputum Interpreter (OSSI) software developed by GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel. The averaging interval was set to 120 seconds. The reference layer was set to bins 5 to 16 avoiding near surface effects and biases near bin 1. Sampling interval setting: 2s; Number of bins: 80; Bin length: 4m; Pulse length: 4m; Blank beyond transmit length: 4m. Data processing setting: Top reference bin: 5; Bottom reference bin: 16; Average: 120s; Misalignment amplitude: 1.0276 +/- 0.1611, phase: 0.8100 +/- 0.7190. The precision for single ping and 4m cell size reported by TRDI is 0.30m/s. Resulting from the single ping precision and the number of pings (most of the time 36) during 120seconds the velocity accuracy is nearly 0.05m/s. (Velocity accuracy = single ping precision divided by square root of the number of pings).

Genetic improvement of feed conversion ratio via indirect selection against lipid deposition in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum)

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (KBBE.2013.1.2-10) under grant agreement n° 613611 FISHBOOST. Moreover, the original data collection was supported by the European Union, Project PROGRESS Q5RS-2001-00994. The staff at Tervo station, Ossi Ritola and Tuija Paananen, are highly acknowledged for fish management. A. Ka., A. Ki., S. M., D. H. and K. R. designed research and wrote the paper; A.Ka analyzed the data and had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors have read and approved the manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.