**2. Collaboration among professionals**

Desirable professional development cannot isolate itself from a consideration of the workplace contexts in which it takes place. The goal is to extend beyond the individual action that has traditionally characterised professional interventions and consider the organisation where these individuals act and their context of action. Taking on institutional commitments to professionalisation, fostering structures for cooperative work and generating processes of internal dynamisation is a personal and institutional challenge, but they are impossible without a change in today's macro- and micro-structural conditions which always exist and in which professionals operate.

Cooperation among professionals *is considered necessary* in today's educational settings, since many of the existing problems cannot be resolved based on limited specialisation and instead require group thinking and teamwork. Likewise, professional action is not individual but group and coordinated if we think about broad intervention processes over time and in the variety of people affected. Collaborative work enables our knowledge to be enriched, expanded and compared in the quest for solutions to the problems posed by the

<sup>1</sup> This article is also based on the broader ACCELERA study (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2009; Gairín-Sallán & Rodríguez-Gómez, 2010; Gairín-Sallán, Rodríguez-Gómez & Armengol, 2010; Gairín, 2011), launched in 2003 by the EDO team (http://edo.uab.cat) and financed by the National RDI plan of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (projects SEC2003-08366 and SEJ2007-67093/EDUC).

Klein, Connel & Meyer, 2005; Leinonen & Järvelä, 2006; Jeon, Kim & Koh, 2011; Ragachari, 2011, Schenkel & Teigland, 2008; Usora et al, 2007; Wenger, 1999, Zang & Watts, 2007). "Among the chief reasons why communities of practice are efficient tools for knowledge generation and sharing is the fact that the most of a firm's competitive advantage is embedded in the intangible, tacit knowledge of its people and that competencies do not exist apart from the people who develop them" (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2003, p. 65). From a relational approach, knowledge is understood as socially constructed resource and, therefore, Knowledge Creation and Management (henceforth KCM) processes should be concentrated on social relations and/or professionals who connect the different agents involved. In this sense, it is obvious that organisational solutions that foster those relations,

such as communities of practice (CoPs), are an interesting way of promoting KCM.

development and evaluation of any KCM strategy in educational organisations.

therefore, the success of the KCM strategy.

**2. Collaboration among professionals** 

which always exist and in which professionals operate.

Over and above the use of CoPs, the development of KCM strategies entails the theoretical and practical command of processes for measuring, creating and disseminating individual and collective knowledge, and the participation of different agents with a clear definition of responsibilities and functions which ensure the proper development of these processes and,

The handful of KCM studies and experiences in the field of education (Petrides & Nguyen, 2006; Sallis & Jones, 2002) which provide theoretical and practical knowledge on the processes and agents of KCM are the motivation behind this article,1 which aims to provide practical answers for the development of KCM processes in educational organisations. In this chapter, we shall note the requirements and benefits of collaborative work among professionals, develop a theoretical survey of the leading processes and agents traditionally linked to KCM processes based on Communities of Practice (henceforth CoPs) and, based on the research, outline a proposal on the essential roles, functions and processes for the design,

Desirable professional development cannot isolate itself from a consideration of the workplace contexts in which it takes place. The goal is to extend beyond the individual action that has traditionally characterised professional interventions and consider the organisation where these individuals act and their context of action. Taking on institutional commitments to professionalisation, fostering structures for cooperative work and generating processes of internal dynamisation is a personal and institutional challenge, but they are impossible without a change in today's macro- and micro-structural conditions

Cooperation among professionals *is considered necessary* in today's educational settings, since many of the existing problems cannot be resolved based on limited specialisation and instead require group thinking and teamwork. Likewise, professional action is not individual but group and coordinated if we think about broad intervention processes over time and in the variety of people affected. Collaborative work enables our knowledge to be enriched, expanded and compared in the quest for solutions to the problems posed by the

1 This article is also based on the broader ACCELERA study (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2009; Gairín-Sallán & Rodríguez-Gómez, 2010; Gairín-Sallán, Rodríguez-Gómez & Armengol, 2010; Gairín, 2011), launched in 2003 by the EDO team (http://edo.uab.cat) and financed by the National RDI plan of the Spanish

Ministry of Science and Technology (projects SEC2003-08366 and SEJ2007-67093/EDUC).

reality around us. Likewise, we must act from or with institutional frameworks where the goal is to generate synergies and leave an embedded capacity related to strategies, procedures and positive attitudes towards change.

Collaboration among professionals *is considered useful* in that it helps to overcome the individualism to which professional activities often lead. In fact, collective work can help us to shift from one activity with others, to one activity in conjunction with others, a collaborative activity, and ultimately it can facilitate a community of interests and a shared culture. Collaboration boosts the creative potential of the resulting team, and the technology of the solutions that they adopt is more proven. We can also mention higher performance in human resources and how they make more profitable use of the material and functional resources available to them. Collaboration enables and challenges reflection on one's own activity, with connotations of personal, collective and institutional improvement. In fact, professional exchanges can broaden perspectives and improve ways of doing things, such as by augmenting the participants' professionalism. Duly channelled in the organisation's processes and results, collaboration provides the members of the organisation with the skill and experience already existing in the organisation and enables new members to integrate quickly and fully. Finally, collaboration strengthens collective activity and a view of organisations as communities of training and professional development.

Collaboration among professionals *is considered possible*, as denoted by the numerous examples and existing evidence. As proof we can cite the collaborative processes which are taking place in the world of education and internally encompass both the coordination of certain students' problems and the organisation and operation of teams of teachers, while externally they encompass associations of schools under the same organisational parameters, groups of schools in rural areas, associations of adult schools, networks of schools, associations between secondary schools and companies or between schools and universities, and collaborative actions promoted within broader contexts such as environmental plans, the City Educational Project and the Innova portal (www.portalinnova.org).

Our current models of social, cultural and economic functioning increasingly support collective undertakings and participatory processes. This is the result of not only living in democratic contexts but also the conviction that in complex settings like ours today innovation and change depend more on the outcome of a collective activity than on the existence of extraordinary individuals capable of motivating desires and overcoming difficulties by themselves.

As has been suggested, the creation of networks and communities fosters collaboration among professions and processes of knowledge creation and professional development, thus justifying many organisations' interest in fostering social and professional ties among their members. We can find references in this vein in professional **Communities of Practice** (henceforth CoPs).

Many authors (Bolam et al., 2005, Collison & Parcell, 2003, Dalkir, 2005, Hardon, 2005, Hargreaves & Giles, 2003, Milton, 2005) use the terms 'network' and 'community' synonymously. However, it is important to point out that some experts distinguish clearly between the two (Cummings & Van Zee, 2005, Despres & Chauvel, 2000, Müller-Prothmann, 2006, Wenger & Snyder, 2000), basing this distinction on the boundaries, from the standpoint of social interaction and belonging, which characterise Communities of Practice (henceforth CoP) yet do not exist in networks. Table 1 outlines some of the characteristics which can help us to differentiate between terms similar to 'community of practice'.

Agents and Processes in Knowledge Creation

development, capture and transfer of good practices.

organisational strategy.

better poised to do so.

McDermott (2001):

as well as the most explicit aspects.

beyond geographic and organisational limits.

and Management in Educational Organisations 337

The smooth running of CoPs depends on the existence of the following facilitators (Cummings & van Zee, 2005; Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007; Kimble y Hildreth, 2005; Milton, 2005): institutional changes that facilitate their development; the quest for effective models for their operation; progress in the technical innovations needed and the provision of tools that foster modern, flexible environments; open participation and horizontal operating structures; collaborative group work; the right coordinator; participation by recognised experts; a launch meeting; the right degree of autonomy given their functions and characteristics; structures for the communication, interaction and storage of shared knowledge; regular, frequent interaction; task-orientation and deadlines; shared interests, desires and motivations; sound use of technology; and finally, alignment with the

If these conditions are in place, the benefits can be manifold because: by using dialogue as the cornerstone of the process, there is better interaction and participation; shared responsibility encourages all the members of the community to participate in the learning process; knowledge is viewed as dynamic and the process of building knowledge as an active, collaborative process; and the active stimulus to share knowledge contributes to the

Ever since they first appeared, CoPs were quickly integrated into organisational management and design, since they offer a new approach for dealing with knowledge in organisations which is focused on people and social structures, and this in turn allows the members of the organisation to learn from each other. Wenger (2007) mentions some of the characteristics that

 They enable practitioners to shoulder collective responsibility for managing the knowledge they need, thus recognising that if they have the right structure, they are

They create the perfect link between learning and performance since the people who

The participants can address both the dynamic and tacit aspects of sharing and creating

CoPs are not limited by formal structures; the connections among their members extend

The kind of relationships that are established between CoPs and the organisation are quite varied and can range from a total lack of recognition of the CoP by the organisation to total institutionalisation (Despres & Chauvel, 2000). In any case, the integration of CoPs into organisations implies consideration of the four challenges to cultivating CoPs proposed by

 Management: This must focus on important aspects for the organisation and its members by finding a member respected by the organisation to coordinate the community, ensuring that people have the time and willingness to participate and

 Community: Getting the key leaders involved, developing personal relationships among the members and developing a passionate / heavily involved core group, and

The importance of CoPs for KCM processes within organisations is based on their ability to totally integrate the knowledge and lessons into their social practices without treating them as isolated processes with no connection to day-to-day operations (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

creating forums for thinking together and systems for sharing information. Technology: Facilitating access to technology and contributions to the community.

explain *organisations' interest in CoPs* as a means of developing strategic capacities:

belong to CoPs are also members of other organisational units.

basing the community on the organisation's core values.

Personal: Generating a real dialogue on important, timely issues.


Table 1. Kinds of structures similar to CoPs (based on Al-Hawamdeh, 2003; Collison & Parcell, 2003; Hislop, 2005; Müller-Prothmann, 2006 and Wenger & Snyder, 2000)

One of the core aspects of the concept of CoP as set forth by Lave and Wenger (1991) is the role played by "legitimate peripheral participation", which describes how knowledge and competences are transferred in groups through different kinds of guidance, implicit learning and active participation in communities. The members of the community fradually shift from "peripheral participation" to "full participation".

The second fundamental concept in the theories of Lave & Wenger (1991) is that of "situational learning", which states that learning should take place in the same context in which it will be applied. This "situational learning" is characterised by two basic principles (Smith, 2009):


Voluntary, open

involvement

Formal membership

Formal

Formal

Voluntary involvement (colleagues, friends, acquaintances,

etc.)

Table 1. Kinds of structures similar to CoPs (based on Al-Hawamdeh, 2003; Collison & Parcell, 2003; Hislop, 2005; Müller-Prothmann, 2006 and Wenger & Snyder, 2000)

One of the core aspects of the concept of CoP as set forth by Lave and Wenger (1991) is the role played by "legitimate peripheral participation", which describes how knowledge and competences are transferred in groups through different kinds of guidance, implicit learning and active participation in communities. The members of the community fradually shift

The second fundamental concept in the theories of Lave & Wenger (1991) is that of "situational learning", which states that learning should take place in the same context in which it will be applied. This "situational learning" is characterised by two basic principles

The new knowledge and learning are only conceived properly when they are located

It makes no sense to talk about decontextualised, abstract or general knowledge.

assignment (by a senior manager)

assignment (by a senior manager)

**Purpose Membership Cohesion Duration** 

Self-selection Passion,

commitment, identification with the group's

Commitment

identification with the target of interest

Workplace requirements and shared goals

Milestones and goals of the project

Workplace requirements and shared goals

Mutual needs and individual interest

Until the interest in maintaining the community disappears

Until the interest disappears

Until the next reorganisation

Until the next reorganisation or until the task is finished

Until the project is finished

Until the members lose interest in being connected

expert knowledge

and

**Kind of Organisation** 

**Interest group** 

**Formal working group** 

**Formal network** 

**Informal network** 

(Smith, 2009):

**Project team or target community** 

**Community of Practice** 

Developing their members' capacities, constructing and exchanging knowledge

Sharing knowledge, learning, creating knowledge

Providing a product or service

Carrying out specific tasks

Carrying out specific tasks within a given domain of knowledge

Exchange of knowledge in a given domain

from "peripheral participation" to "full participation".

inside communities of practice.

The smooth running of CoPs depends on the existence of the following facilitators (Cummings & van Zee, 2005; Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007; Kimble y Hildreth, 2005; Milton, 2005): institutional changes that facilitate their development; the quest for effective models for their operation; progress in the technical innovations needed and the provision of tools that foster modern, flexible environments; open participation and horizontal operating structures; collaborative group work; the right coordinator; participation by recognised experts; a launch meeting; the right degree of autonomy given their functions and characteristics; structures for the communication, interaction and storage of shared knowledge; regular, frequent interaction; task-orientation and deadlines; shared interests, desires and motivations; sound use of technology; and finally, alignment with the organisational strategy.

If these conditions are in place, the benefits can be manifold because: by using dialogue as the cornerstone of the process, there is better interaction and participation; shared responsibility encourages all the members of the community to participate in the learning process; knowledge is viewed as dynamic and the process of building knowledge as an active, collaborative process; and the active stimulus to share knowledge contributes to the development, capture and transfer of good practices.

Ever since they first appeared, CoPs were quickly integrated into organisational management and design, since they offer a new approach for dealing with knowledge in organisations which is focused on people and social structures, and this in turn allows the members of the organisation to learn from each other. Wenger (2007) mentions some of the characteristics that explain *organisations' interest in CoPs* as a means of developing strategic capacities:


The kind of relationships that are established between CoPs and the organisation are quite varied and can range from a total lack of recognition of the CoP by the organisation to total institutionalisation (Despres & Chauvel, 2000). In any case, the integration of CoPs into organisations implies consideration of the four challenges to cultivating CoPs proposed by McDermott (2001):


The importance of CoPs for KCM processes within organisations is based on their ability to totally integrate the knowledge and lessons into their social practices without treating them as isolated processes with no connection to day-to-day operations (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Agents and Processes in Knowledge Creation

processing).

learning).

Tacit

Epistemological Dimension

Explicit Combination

Gómez, 2009):

transforming.

and Management in Educational Organisations 339

 **Externalisation:** This entails the formalisation and structuring of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge through dialogue, schemas, formulas, metaphors, analogies, models, etc. This is perhaps the most important form of knowledge conversion, since it enables explicit new concepts to be created based on tacit knowledge (production – innovation). **Combination**: This is a process of systematisation (analysis, comparison, categorisation, etc.) of the explicit knowledge existing to create new explicit knowledge (information

 **Internalisation**: Through this process, individuals absorb the explicit knowledge, include it in their cognitive structures and transform it into tacit knowledge (organisational

Externalisation

Fig. 1. Spiral of the creation of organisational knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1999, p. 81) Compared to what we could call the "first generation of knowledge management" spearheaded by Nonaka & Takeuchi's "knowledge specialist" (1999), which assumes that valuable knowledge already exists within the organisation, through the Knowledge Management Consortium International (www.kmci.org) Firestone & McElroy (2003) are advocating the second generation of KCM, which is much more inclusive in terms of people, processes and social initiatives. It believes that knowledge does not exist a priori; rather it is something we produce as part of

Level of knowledge

Socialisation Interiorización

Ontological Dimension

Individual Group Organisational Inter-organisational

As we can see, the main processes involved in KCM can be grouped as follows (Rodríguez-

1. **Initial**: Concentrating, storing, controlling, capturing, getting, accessing, planning,

2. **Processual**: Understanding, valuing, measuring, evaluating, developing, creating and

3. **Final**: Applying, exploiting, using, renewing, transforming, sharing and distributing. In addition to the basic and typical processes of KCM, developing an intervention of this kind in any organisation must necessarily take into account the generic aspects of project management, such as the project's appropriateness and pertinence to the characteristics,

social systems and that we make through individual and shared processes.

coordinating, formulating, identifying and locating.

The usefulness of CoPs in KCM processes, either online or offline (Table 2), depends not only on the knowledge they can share but also on other basic factors such as a shared identity and values. If these elements are present, the knowledge processes are facilitated and communication of the tacit knowledge becomes simplified, since their existence prompts the social conditions and trust needed to create and manage knowledge (Hislop, 2005).


Table 2. Online vs. offline communities of practice (Rao, 2005, p. 42)
