Talking about innovation
Communities of Practice In Open Innovation
While flying from NYC back to Dallas this morning I took part in an excellent Twitterchat about "Knowledge in Innovation" led by Christian De Neef (@CDN) at #KMers.
The topic of using communities of practice (CoPs) as innovation sources came up, and I mentioned I'd used them in the past and had found them to be excellent sources if guided well. @AndreaMeyer asked what recommendations I had regarding guidance, and before I could answer the WiFi connection was turned off. :-)
So, in answer to Andrea’s question, here are six things I would recommend when working with CoPs as well as other types of communities. (By the way, these recommendations are covered in detail in a white paper I co-authored called “Enhancing the Open Model Through the Use of Community.”)
1. Start With A Clear Purpose – Answering this question early will keep your efforts on track. Do you really need innovative thinking, or something else called for, such as the sharing of best practices?
2. Determine Who To Involve – Just because someone is a CoP member doesn’t mean they’ll be a good source of innovative ideas. Typically, my innovation activities with CoPs have involved a relatively small subset of community members – those who are capable of and willing to offer innovative suggestions. Spend time identifying the characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, and interests of your “ideal” contributor, and then create a profile of who you should involve. Also, there isn’t a magic number regarding how many people to involve; but keep in mind the larger the group, the more challenging it can be to keep everyone engaged and productive.
3. The third recommendation is to communicate parameters and the end goal clearly and appropriately to the participants. Innovation flourishes in a clearly-defined environment, one in which individuals can work together toward a common goal rather than wander aimlessly by themselves. Regardless of how innovative the members are, in order for them to offer creative, actionable contributions, they must understand the goals and what they have to work with.
4. The fourth recommendation (and this is probably one of the more difficult recommendations to implement) is to create an appropriate innovation environment. This doesn't necessarily mean sitting on the floor and playing with toys. However, if CoP participants are to offer up innovation suggestions and ideas, often they have to “leave their expertise at the door” – at least for a while. This is a situation in which being a subject matter expert can constrict innovation rather than enhance it. There is an appropriate time for asking questions, discussing pros and cons, and offering up past learnings, but it’s not while looking for sources of innovation.
5. If you intend use CoPs as innovation sources on an ongoing basis, make sure to motivate the participants in meaningful ways. Often a public acknowledgement of participants' contributions can be sufficient.
6. Again, if you intend to continue to tap into CoPs for innovative ideas, be sure to assess each person’s participation; if their contributions aren’t what you had hoped, don’t involve them next time. This can be done subtly so no one becomes disgruntled or feels disappointed. Participants can be given a “vacation” providing new people with the opportunity to participate in projects.
Hopefully you'll find these recommendations helpful; and as always, comments are welcome!
Gwen Ishmael
@Gwen_Ishmael
The topic of using communities of practice (CoPs) as innovation sources came up, and I mentioned I'd used them in the past and had found them to be excellent sources if guided well. @AndreaMeyer asked what recommendations I had regarding guidance, and before I could answer the WiFi connection was turned off. :-)
So, in answer to Andrea’s question, here are six things I would recommend when working with CoPs as well as other types of communities. (By the way, these recommendations are covered in detail in a white paper I co-authored called “Enhancing the Open Model Through the Use of Community.”)
1. Start With A Clear Purpose – Answering this question early will keep your efforts on track. Do you really need innovative thinking, or something else called for, such as the sharing of best practices?
2. Determine Who To Involve – Just because someone is a CoP member doesn’t mean they’ll be a good source of innovative ideas. Typically, my innovation activities with CoPs have involved a relatively small subset of community members – those who are capable of and willing to offer innovative suggestions. Spend time identifying the characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, and interests of your “ideal” contributor, and then create a profile of who you should involve. Also, there isn’t a magic number regarding how many people to involve; but keep in mind the larger the group, the more challenging it can be to keep everyone engaged and productive.
3. The third recommendation is to communicate parameters and the end goal clearly and appropriately to the participants. Innovation flourishes in a clearly-defined environment, one in which individuals can work together toward a common goal rather than wander aimlessly by themselves. Regardless of how innovative the members are, in order for them to offer creative, actionable contributions, they must understand the goals and what they have to work with.
4. The fourth recommendation (and this is probably one of the more difficult recommendations to implement) is to create an appropriate innovation environment. This doesn't necessarily mean sitting on the floor and playing with toys. However, if CoP participants are to offer up innovation suggestions and ideas, often they have to “leave their expertise at the door” – at least for a while. This is a situation in which being a subject matter expert can constrict innovation rather than enhance it. There is an appropriate time for asking questions, discussing pros and cons, and offering up past learnings, but it’s not while looking for sources of innovation.
5. If you intend use CoPs as innovation sources on an ongoing basis, make sure to motivate the participants in meaningful ways. Often a public acknowledgement of participants' contributions can be sufficient.
6. Again, if you intend to continue to tap into CoPs for innovative ideas, be sure to assess each person’s participation; if their contributions aren’t what you had hoped, don’t involve them next time. This can be done subtly so no one becomes disgruntled or feels disappointed. Participants can be given a “vacation” providing new people with the opportunity to participate in projects.
Hopefully you'll find these recommendations helpful; and as always, comments are welcome!
Gwen Ishmael
@Gwen_Ishmael
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Meyer on -
Thank you very much for your recommendations, Gwen! (and now I understand why you lost wifi access during the chat!) I'm curious, were the CoPs you worked with made up of people from different companies? If so, was IP an issue in sharing ideas? It's often a challenge, and I'm curious how others have addressed the challenge.
Thanks also for the link to your white paper - I'm heading there now...
@AndreaMeyer
http://www.workingknowledge.com/blog/
-
Permalink Reply by Gwen Smith Ishmael on
-
Hey, Andrea!
I've worked w/ CoPs from the same and different companies, and you're right, IP issues are particularly sticky when people come from different places, and there are some areas we've chosen not to explore with cross-company groups. However, we’ve found that when we do work with people from different companies we’ll do so in an online environment where people have to remain anonymous. (We’ve actually removed people who shared too much information because we felt it would compromise the project.) And, of course, they can opt out at any time if they feel uncomfortable.
I’d like to hear what other people have done as well!
Gwen
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Meyer on
-
Interesting solution, the online anonymity and discouraging of sharing TOO much. @VMaryAbraham was also curious abut this topic, I'll tell her about your post.
-
Permalink Reply by Christian DE NEEF on
-
Creating an appropriate innovation environment is certainly the most important, and possibly the most difficult, in this list. Part of the issue I have with (traditional) CoP is that the participants:
- Form a relatively stable team (little turnover) which seems counterproductive when it comes to being creative... A team that is storming may create more (unpredictable/interesting) output than a team that is norming.
- Often come from the same background/discipline, which limits the diversity of opinions as well as the number of different viewpoints to look at a problem... My ideal innovation team includes both traditional subject matter experts AND people coming from other domains/disciplines.
If we can overcome both points, then indeed a CoP could be an excellent innovation team. Unfortunately, I have not seen this often in action. Quite the contrary, it seems to me that some CoP can be change resistant and hinder innovation.
@cdn
-
-
Excellent points, Christian.
Team member stability is good for many things but certainly can stagnate thinking, and common backgrounds can produce myopic ideas. The secret to success (at least in my thinking and experience) is in identifying and involving people who are open to being led through a process that will allow them to view things in new ways in spite of their expertise and longevity.
A couple of years ago we involved a community of network architects in innovation – it took a while for us to break through some of the issues you’ve identified, but by the end those who were willing to follow the process offered excellent seeds of innovation.
Good convo – please add your replies!
Gwen
@Gwen_Ishmael
© 2010 Created by Renee Hopkins - @Renee_Hopkins.
Powered by 
.
