Journal of Knowledge Management Group dynamics and the role of ICT in the life cycle analysis of community of practice-based product development: a case study Ilpo Pohjola Anu Puusa Article information: To cite this document: Ilpo Pohjola Anu Puusa , (2016),"Group dynamics and the role of ICT in the life cycle analysis of community of practice- based product development: a case study ", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 465 - 483 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2015-0227 Downloaded on: 26 March 2017, At: 21:01 (PT) References: this document contains references to 82 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 465 times since 2016* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2016),"The effect of online social networks and competency-based management on innovation capability", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 499-511 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2015-0175 (2016),"Factors affecting the use of wiki to manage knowledge in a small company", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 423-443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2015-0205 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:332610 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)GroupdynamicsandtheroleofICTin thelifecycleanalysisofcommunityof practice-basedproductdevelopment: acasestudy IlpoPohjolaandAnuPuusa IlpoPohjolais DevelopmentManagerat theJoensuuScience Park,Joensuu,Finland. AnuPuusaisAssociate Professoratthe UniversityofEastern Finland,Joensuu, Finland. Abstract Purpose – Thispaperaimstoexaminethedynamicsofacommunityofpractice(CoP)throughacase studyofeCars–Now!Theyofferopen-sourceblueprintsoftheelectricconversionkitsglobally.The authorsanalysedtheCoPbyconsideringitsentirelifecycle,startingfromthemotivesforits establishment,throughitsactiveperformance,uptothecurrentstage,wherethemembersneedto decidewhetherthecommunitywillremainviable.Particularattentionwaspaidtothegroupdynamics andissuesthatseemedrelevanttothechangeindynamicswhichdeterminewhetheraCoPmaintains itsvitalityordissipates. Design/methodology/approach – Thequalitativecasestudywaschosenastheresearchstrategy (Yin,1984)toanswertheresearchquestionandunderstandthetargetphenomenonoftheCoPby analysingtextualdata.Thisparticularcasewaschosenbecauseofitsunusualrevelatoryvalueforthe caseCoPwhichaimsatcreatingatangibleinnovationbyusingaplatformthatnormallyaimsat intangibleproblem-solving(EisenhardtandGraebner,2007).Inthedatacollection,theauthorsused methodandresearchertriangulation(Patton,1990). Findings – Lifecycleanalysisrevealedfourthemesthatexplainedthechangeinthegroupdynamics andthedispersalofthecommunity:differentiationanddispersalofinterests,growththatresultedinrole differentiation,virtualityincommunitydevelopmentandinclusionofinvestors.Thethemeswereall relatedtothefactthatthecasecommunityoperatedwithnotonlyknowledge,butalsowithatangible product.Therefore,thetangibilityofaproblemtobesolvedseemstoplayapivotalroleinaCoP’s operationsanddynamicsand,inpart,alsoexplainsthechangingroleofinformationand communicationstechnology(ICT)intheprocess. Researchlimitations/implications – However,thispaperidentifiedalsodifferentwaysto characterizecommunityparticipation,whichwasalsorelevantfromgroupdynamicspointofview.Thus, thetopicshouldbestudiedfurther.Groupdynamicsingeneral,asitrelatestothesuccessofCoPs, shouldbealsoinvestigatedfurther.Additionalstudiesshouldimplementtheinclusionofexternal resourcesinthecommunity.Furtherresearchisalsoneededtoinvestigatetangibleandintangible outcomesachievedthroughCoPs.Muchoftheavailableresearchwasconductedovershortperiods; prolongedinteractionsinaCoPcontextcouldshowdifferentresults. Practicalimplications – Inconclusion,atthebeginningofthelifecycleoftheeCarscommunity,ICT playedasignificantrole.Ithelpedincreaseawarenessofthecommunityinthefirstplaceandenabled peopletojoinin,whichthusenabledthecommunitytoevolve.Whentheoperationsevolvedandthelife cycleprogressed,boththephysicalmeetingplaceaswellaspersonalinteractionandcommunication becameemphasizedandmuchmoreimportant.Inthematuringstage,theroleofICT,andespecially socialmedia,istheessentialpartofthecommunity. Socialimplications – Thisanalysissuggeststhatattheearlystageofacommunity,theplanscanbe somewhatrandom,evenutopian,butwhenthecommunityevolves,thisuncertaintycanbecomea problem.First,itaffectsachievingtheactual,andinthiscase,concreteresults.Second,uncertaintyand unclaritydampenenthusiasmandmotivation,whichareofutmostimportanceduetothevoluntary participation.Thispaperalsoconcludesthatwhentheoperationsevolvedandthelifecycle Received12June2015 Revised30October2015 Accepted16November2015 DOI 10.1108/JKM-06-2015-0227 VOL.20NO.32016,pp.465-483,©EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited,ISSN1367-3270 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE465 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)progressed,boththephysicalmeetingplaceaswellaspersonalinteractionandcommunication becameincreasinglyimportant. Originality/value – Thispaperarguesthattheideologicalbasisforthiskindofcommunityshouldbe openness.Allinformationshouldbeavailableforeveryonewhoregisterstothecommunityplatformon theinternet.Thiscommunitywasworkinginthemindsetofopeninnovation.Technicaldocumentation andallothermaterialwereavailableforeveryoneinthecommunity’swikipages,whichattractedalotof peoplewhoweredelightedbyeCars.Manyadvisorsdeliveredtechnicalinformationandgoodadvice tothepractitionersofthecommunitythroughtheplatform.Thehangaroundswerealsovery well-informedinthisstageregardinghowthecoregroupwasworking. Keywords Communitiesofpractice,Informationtechnology,Openinnovation,Socialnetworks, Knowledgecreation,Groupdynamics Papertype Casestudy 1.Introduction Accordingto CartwrightandZander(1960,p.7),groupdynamicsapplytoa“fieldof inquirydedicatedtoadvancingknowledgeaboutthenatureofgroups,thelawsoftheir development,andtheirinterrelationswithindividuals,othergroups,andlargerinstitutions”. Groupdynamicsassignasetofnorms,rolesandrelationsinacertainsocialgroupwitha commongoal.Membersofthegroupcreateinterdependency,throughwhichthe behaviours,attitudes,opinionsandexperiencesofthemembersarecollectivelyinfluenced byallothergroupmembers(Wageman,1995).Somearguethatthebusinesscommunity ismissinganunderstandingofwhatkindofsocialstructurecaneffectivelypromote learning,developskillsandmanageinformation(Uzzi,1997; Wenger etal.,2002; Zahra andGeorge,2002).Communitiesofpractice(CoPs)asopen-innovationplatformshave beenregardedasusefultoolstoshareandmanageknowledgeinternallyandwithother stakeholders(HafkesbrinkandSchroll,2011; MichaelidesandKehoe,2007). Accordingto Wenger(1998b),knowledgecreationinaCoPtakesplacewhenpeopleare involvedinproblem-solvingandarewillingtoshareenoughinformationtosolvethe problem.Newknowledgecanbeproducedbyconvertingtacitknowledgetoexplicit knowledgebycommunicatingthroughthesocialprocessbetweenindividuals(Nonaka andTakeuchi,1995; PuusaandEerikäinen,2010).Individuals’tacitknowledgeisoftenthe mostvaluableknowledgeinacommunity,becauseitconsistsofpeople’sexpertiseand deepunderstandingofcomplexissuesandenablestheprovisionofadaptiveresponsesto context-specificproblems(Wenger etal.,2002).Forpeopletosharetheirtacitknowledge requiresacloseinvolvementofthecommunityandthecooperationofallaswellasuseof networksandface-to-facecontact,whichincreasesmutualunderstandingandtrust(Lam, 2000; Ardichvili etal.,2003).TacitknowledgeistransmittedinaCoPasaninformallearning process,throughstorytelling,discussionandcoaching(Wenger etal.,2002).Through theseprocesses,membersoftheCoPareabletoincreasetheirownunderstandingand increasethecollectiveknowledgeoftheircommunity(BrownandDuguid,1991, 1998). Thus,aCoPprovidesasocialcontext(Correia etal.,2010)whichallcanusetolearn together,basedonthefactthatpeopleexchangeknowledgeandcommonpracticesand haveacollectiveidentity(Wenger,1998a; KirschnerandLai,2007; Correia etal.,2010). ThisarticleexaminesacaseCoPwhichwaschosenbecauseofitsunusualrevelatoryvalue (EisenhardtandGraebner,2007);itaimedatcreatingtangibleinnovationbyusinga platformthatnormallyaimsatintangibleproblem-solving(WengerandSnyder,2000).A qualitativecasestudywasconducted,andoneCoP-basedproductdevelopmentprocess wasanalysedbyconsideringtheCoP’sentirelifecycle,startingfromananalysisofthe motivesforitsestablishment,throughitsactiveperformance,uptothecurrentstage,where themembersneedtodecidewhetherthecommunitywillremainviable.Thisarticleaimsat deepeningtheunderstandingofgroupdynamicsinaCoP;intheanalysis,particular attentionispaidtoissueswhichseemrelevanttoachangeindynamics.Somenew characteristicsassociatedwithroleswithinthecommunityandthesuccessfulusageof informationandcommunicationstechnology(ICT)arealsoidentified.Thisstudy demonstratesthateffectivelydeployedwikisandblogsofferoneimportantchannelto PAGE466 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)enhancecommunitymembers’engagementandcollaborationwithindigital communicationenvironments. Thestudyaimstoanswerthefollowingresearchquestion:“Whatarethecriticalfeatures thatexplainthechangeingroupdynamicsandalsohelpexplainwhyaCoPmaintainsor losesitsvitality?”ThecaserevealstheinterconnectednessbetweenthecoreideaofCoPs andgroupdynamicsbydescribinghowthedynamicsareaffectedbyvariedagendasand bymemberswhojointheCoPwithinterestswhicharenotinaccordancewiththeCoP’s originalideabutaresolelyfinance-based.Itisarguedthatiftheparticipantsvalueonly concreteresultsandlookonlyfortheirpotentialmonetaryvalue,itdisruptsthegroup dynamics,erodesthegroup’svoluntarynatureandthusunderminestheentireideaof CoPs. 2.Communitiesofpracticeandvirtuality LaveandWenger(1991) initiallydefinedaCoPasanaturallyoccurring,informaland self-organizingcommunitythatelectsitsmembers. Wenger etal. (2002,p.4)laterrevised thisdefinitionbystatingthatCoPsare“groupsofpeoplewhoshareaconcern,asetof problems,orapassionaboutatopic,andwhodeepentheirknowledgeandexpertisein thisareabyinteractingonanongoingbasis”. Wenger etal. (2002) continuebysayingthat theCoPcanalsobegeneratedonpurpose,anditmaybeasemiformalpartofan organization.TheoriginaldefinitionofaCoPisasarelativelystablecommunitywhere membersworkincloseinteractionneartooneanotherandinwhichidentityisformed throughparticipationandnegotiation,allofwhichiscentraltolearningandknowledge creation(AminandRoberts,2008). Kodama(2005) statesthattheorganization’sabilityto sharetacitknowledgeaffectstheorganization’sinnovationprocesses.CoPshavealso beenconsideredaninnovativewaytomanageinformationandmaintaininnovation processes(LesserandPrusack,1999; Swan etal.,2002). Inpractice,someCoPsregularlyorganizeface-to-facemeetingsamongtheirmembers whoareworkingclosetoeachother(AminandRoberts,2008),whilesomeCoPmembers areconnectedtoeachotherprimarilybyemailorthroughinternetapplicationsthatenable adynamic,global,virtualandreal-timeinteraction(McLure etal.,2000; Ardichvili etal., 2003). Virtualcommunitiesofpractice(VCoPs)membersareusuallyconnectedtoeachotherby ICTsolutions.Toallowvirtualcooperation,theyusetechnicaltoolssuchasemail,video conferencing,newsgroups,onlinemeetings,commondatabases,websitesandintranets. VCoPscanalsousemanytraditionaltoolssuchastelephonesandtelephoneconferences (Barrett etal.,2004).Inmanymultinationalorganizations,VCoPsarewidelyusedas knowledgemanagement(KM)tools(Ardichvili etal.,2003).Inthepast,CoPswere occasionallyusedinorganizationswithoutplanningandmanagement,buttoday, organizationsseeCoPsascriticalresources,andtheyarewelltakencareof(Brownand Duguid,2001; McDermott,2000; SchwenandHara,2003;. Swan etal.,2002; Thompson, 2005; WengerandSnyder,2000). 2.1Principlesforcommunitydevelopment Accordingto BurkandSutton(2000),asuccessfulCoPisorganizedaroundtheneedsof itsmembers.Thus,COPscanbeofdifferentsizesandcanbestructuredindifferentways ‘‘Virtualcommunitiesofpractice(VCoPs)membersareusually connectedtoeachotherbyICTsolutions.’’ VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE467 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)anduseavarietyofwaystostayconnected.ThekeytoasuccessfulCoPisthemotivation ofthememberstoparticipateactivelyinthecreationandsharingofknowledge(Ardichvili etal.,2003). Thestructureisgeneratedonthebasisofthemembers’mutualrelations.Thegroup structurecanbeinterpretedbytherolesofthemembersaswellasnorms,values,modes ofcommunicationandstatusdifferences(JexandBritt,2008). Wenger etal. (2002) argued thatagoodcommunityarchitecturecomprisesmanylevelsofparticipationanddifferent reasonsforparticipating.Theyidentifiedthreemainlevelsofcommunityparticipation,as illustratedin Figure1. Asmallcoregroupactivelyparticipatesindiscussionsanddebates,occupyingthepublic forumandcarryingthecommunityaccordingtothelearningobjectives.Thisgroupforms theheartofthecommunity(Wenger etal.,2002). Wenger etal. (2002) arguethatthecore membersofthegroupusuallyleadthecommunityandassistthecommunitycoordinator. Second-levelparticipantsformasmallactivegroup,butitdoesnotworkatthesame regularityandwiththesameintensityasthecoregroup.Athirdgroupofcommunity membersisattheouterperiphery,andthesemembersrarelyparticipateincommunity activities.Whilethesemembersmayconsidertheirparticipationmeaninglessforthewhole community,theyareanessentialdimensionofaCoP(Wenger etal.,2002).Thefourth groupconsistsofpeoplearoundthecommunity,whoarenotmembersbutwhoare interestedinitssubjectmatterandthemission.Thisgroupmayincludecustomersor suppliersandexhibitthesamespiritastheirneighbours(Wenger etal.,2002). 2.2Stagesofthecommunity Groupformationgenerallybeginswhenapsychologicalbondisformedamongindividuals. Inthesocialidentityapproach,thegroupbeginstoformwhenagroupofindividualsare familiarpartsofthesamesocialgroup(e.g.doctors,studentsorplumbers),andthe attractionbetweenpeopleisonlyessentialtostrengthenthelinkbetweenindividuals(Hogg andWilliams,2000).Theinteractionamongindividualsdevelopsthegroupnorms,roles andattitudes,whichdefinethegroupanditsinternalfunctioning(Sherif,1936).Emergent establishedgroupsareformedspontaneously.Thesegroupsaremissinganypreviously designedstructuresorrolesandanypreviousexperienceofworkingtogether(Majchrzak etal.,2007).Thereisastronginterdependenceamongtheparticipantsincoordinatingthe information,resourcesandtasksingroups(Majchrzak etal.,2007).Accordingto Levine andMoreland(1998),differentrolesinvolvedefiningdifferentrolesofgroupmembers. Normsarerarelywrittendownorevendiscussed,buttheyhaveapowerfulimpactonthe group’sbehaviour(GreenbergandBaron,2008; Hahn,2010).Membersofthegroupwork togethertodevelopthesenorms,whichprovideidentityandasenseofsecuritytothe Figure1 Degreesofcommunityparticipation PAGE468 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)individuals(Brooks,2009).Accordingto Schwartz(2007),thevaluesarethegoalsor ideals,whichconstitutetheguidingprinciplesofthegroup. Themotivationtoworkinagroupdependsonthepersonalbenefitsreceivedbyeach memberofthegroup.Accordingto Bass(1960),theexistenceofthegroupformedis rewardinginitselfforeachofitsmembers,althoughthegroupobjectivesarecrucially importantinthemotivationtoparticipate. MabryandBarnes(1980) arguedthatthegroup isformedbyanetworkofpeoplewhohaveobviouslyinvestedthepowerofpersonal decision-makinginpartofalargersocialentity(referredtoasagroup)intheirpursuitofa commongoalthatwouldbeunreachableforindividuals. Figure2 illustrateshowatypicalCoPcontinuallyevolves(Wenger,1998b).Wenger identifiedfivestagesofcommunitydevelopment–potential,coalescing,active,dispersed andmemorable–eachcharacterizedbydifferentlevelsofinteractionamongthemembers andvariouskindsofactivities. Communitydevelopmentstartswiththesocialnetwork,whichusuallyattractsaninformal groupofpeoplewhostartnetworking.Coalescingisimportantingettingtowork,because itallowsindividualstobuildrelationshipsandtrustandanawarenessofcommoninterests andneeds.Communitiesthrivewhenmembersreceivetheaddedvalueofparticipation (Wenger etal.,2002). Duringthematurationphase,themostimportantthingistomovefromtheestablishmentto clarifythefocusofthecommunity,itsrolesandboundaries.Thisisaveryactivephasefor thecommunitycoordinatorsandsupportstaff,whooftenbreakapartorrearrangethe community(Wenger etal.,2002). Theradicaltransformationordeathofthecommunityinitslifecycleisasnaturalastepas anystageinaprocessofbirth,growthandlife(Wenger etal.,2002).Duringthischange, peopleleavethecommunityifitisnolongeruseful,directlyorindirectly(Saint-Ongeand Wallace,2003). Mostcommunitieshavemechanismsallowingmembersofthecommunitytosolve problemsandshareideas.Communitiesthatarefocusedonassistancetypicallycreate forumswherepeopleconsidertherelationshipsbetweenthegeographicaldistanceor Figure2 Stagesofdevelopmentofcommunitiesofpractice VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE469 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)businessunitsofdifferentteams,decidewhatkindofinformationtheywillsharewiththe othersandconsiderhowtheycanproduceaddedvalueaswellasgoodideasforthewhole community(Wenger etal.,2002). 2.3TheroleofICT Accordingto Soto-Acosta etal. (2013),duringthepastdecades,KMhasemergedasakey disciplinethatexplainsorganizationallearningandinnovation.ICTshelpfacilitate knowledgeacquisitionandcreation,knowledgedisseminationandknowledgeutilization, meaningthatKMpracticesarestronglysupportedbyICTs(Soto-Acosta etal.,2015; Jayasingam etal.,2012). SigalaandChalkiti(2014) arguedthatwiththerecentappearance ofWeb2.0,theterm“KM2.0”hasbeencoinedtosummarizenewtrendsinKM.Theydefine KM2.0astheacquisition,creationandsharingofcollectiveintelligencethroughsocial networksandcommunitiesofknowledge. Theinternethascreatedmanynew possibilitiesforcommunicationandsocial interaction.Forexample,forumsandnewsgroupsareincreasinglythefocalpointsof newkindsofinteractionbetweenindividualsanddifferentvirtualcommunities(Komito, 1998; EtzioniandEtzioni,1999; BakardjievaandFeenberg,2002; WilsonandPeterson, 2002).Accordingto Komito(2011),socialmediaallowspeopletomonitorvoice,video, textandpicturestomaintainalowlevelofmutualunderstandingandtosupport fragmentedcommunityrelations.Bypromotingbondingcapital,itsupportsthe enhancementofscatteredcommunities(Komito,2011).Accordingto Palacios- Marquès etal. (2015),itisessentialtoassimilateinternettechnologiestosupport informationsharingandknowledgeexchangewithinfirms.Hence,itisimportantto understandwhichfactorsinfluencetheuseofinternettechnologiesforknowledge exchange(Palacios-Marqués etal.,2015). Thosewhodonotwanttocommentonotherblogsresemblelurkersinothervirtual communities(Blanchard,2004).Lurkersaremembersofavirtualcommunityandregularly readthemessages,buttheydonotjoinintheconversation(Blanchard,2004).Many researchersbelievethat“lurking”isanegativephenomenon(KollockandSmith,1996). However,itcanbeseenthatthemajorityofonlinecommunitymembersarelurkers (BlanchardandMarkus,2003). BlanchardandMarkus(2003) reportedthatlurkershavea clearsenseofmembershipinonlinecommunities,eventhoughthissenseisweakerthan thatofthemoreactivemembers. Ithasalsobeenarguedthatvirtualcommunitiesincreasetheirparticipationintraditional face-to-facecommunities,whichenhancesdemocracyandothercommunityactivities (BakardjievaandFeenberg,2002; BlanchardandHoran,1998; Schuler,1996). Accordingto Soto-Acosta etal. (2014a, 2014b),organizationalfactorsshouldnot restrictbutshouldfacilitatetheimplementationandusageofinternettechnologies. JewellandWalker(2005) highlightthefactthatonlythroughdialoguecanoneensure thatthecontextoftheknowledgeflowisinlinewiththerecipients’needs.Forthis reason,themosteffectiveknowledgechannelsinanorganizationtendtobethe personalnetworkswhichformthebasisofmanyCoPs(JewellandWalker,2005). Accordingto JewellandWalker(2005),onekeytosuccessfulKMcanthereforebe definedintermsofunderstanding,supporting,expandingandinfluencingthese networksthroughthedefinitionandmanagementofCoPsandtheimplementationof appropriatetechnologytosupportsuchCoPs. ‘‘Groupformationgenerallybeginswhenapsychological bondisformedamongindividuals.’’ PAGE470 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Oneofthemostsuccessfulmodelsistheapplicationofcommunitypracticesinwhich groupmembersareabletoexploretheirknowledgeandexchangeinformationthrough synchronousdiscussionboards(Godwin-Jones,2003).ThisWeb-basedtechnology supportscollaborativelearningwhichenricheslearningperformance,bothforindividual knowledgeconstructionandgroupknowledgesharing(Liaw etal.,2008). Forexample,ablogisconstructedbypeoplewhosharemutualinterests;itallowsthemto collaborativelysetobjectives,regulationsandformats,andthisiswhatdistinguishesblogs fromothertypesofwebsites(Godwin-Jones,2003; Richardson,2005).Ablogislikeasmall learningcommunity(EfimovaandFiedler,2003).Memberstendtogetmoreinvolvedthan theydoinotherpedagogicandWeb-basedenvironments,thusproducingastronger senseofcommunity(Wenger,1998a; Godwin-Jones,2003; EfimovaandFiedler,2003; Godwin-Jones,2008). 3.Researchsettingsandmethods ElectricCars–Now!isacollectiveventureaimingatmakingelectriccarsaffordablefor everybody.Thisopen-sourcecommunitywasestablishedin2007inFinland.The communitywebpagesandwikisofferopen-sourceblueprintsforelectriccarconversion kitsworldwideandleavethemanufacturingofthekitstothemarkets.Whenthisstudywas conducted,thecommunitycoreconsistedofafewindividuals,whiletheactivegroup totalled27members.Theentityhadalargenumberoffollowers,whoweresupportedby manycompaniesandorganizations. Thequalitativecasestudywaschosenasaresearchstrategy(Yin,1994).Itreferstoan empiricalstudywhich“investigatesacontemporaryphenomenonindepthandwithinits real-lifecontext,especiallywhentheboundariesbetweenphenomenonandcontextarenot clearlyevident”(Yin,2009,p.18).ThisstudyfollowstheagendadescribedbyEisenhardt (1989,p.534):“thecasestudyasaresearchstrategyfocusesonunderstandingthe dynamicspresentwithinsinglesettings”.Thisparticularcasewaschosenbecauseofits unusualrevelatoryvalueforaCoPthataimsatcreatingatangibleinnovationbyusinga platformthatnormallyaimsatintangibleproblem-solving(EisenhardtandGraebner,2007). Thedatacollectionwasconductedusingmethodandresearchertriangulation(Patton, 1990).Creswell(1994),whodefinescasestudystrategywithintheframeworkofan interpretativeparadigm,statesthatwithacasestudy,aresearchercharacteristically focusesonasingleentityorphenomenonthatisboundedbytimeandactivityandcollects detailedinformationbyusingavarietyofdatacollectionprocedures. Morrow(2005) states thatusingmultipledatasourcesenhancestheinterpretivestatusoftheevidence.Atfirst, theparticipantswereaskedtowritefreelyabouthowtheyinitiallybecameinvolvedwiththe community,howtheyperceivedtheoperationsandfunctioningoftheCoPandhowthey foresawitsfuturefromboththeirpersonalperspectivesandtheperspectiveoftheCoP. Afteraqualitativecontentanalysis,theconclusionswereusedasabasisforsubsequent datacollectionviapersonalinterviews.Finally,agroupinterviewwasconductedusinga focusedinterviewmethod(BarbourandKitzinger,1999). Theadequacyofasamplesizeisrelativeinqualitativeresearch,andnoobjectiveanalysis methodstodetermineitexist(Sandelowski,1995).However,whilestandardizedmethods ‘‘Theanalysisinthisstudysuggeststhatattheearlystageof acommunity,theplanscanbesomewhatrandomandeven utopian,butwhenthecommunityevolves,thisuncertainty maybecomeaproblem.’’ VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE471 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)andguidelinesarescarce,justifyingthesamplesizeinthesamewayasanyotherchoices isrelevantinallstudies.Purposeful,criterion-basedsamplingwasused(Morrow,2005); thatis,participantswereselectedtoprovidethemostinformation-richdatapossible.The intervieweeshadsharedexperienceinregardstoaparticularphenomenon,andtheyall belongedtoacoregroupintheCoPinquestion(Wenger,1998a).Fourinterviewees, includingthreetechnologyspecialistsandacommunityorganizer,representedtheheartof thecommunity(Wenger etal.,2002). Morrow(2005,p.255)pointsoutthatitisirrelevantto evaluatequalitativestudysolelybasedonthenumberofinformants,“asifsheernumbers areanassuranceofthequalityofthefindings”.Shecontinuesthatnumbersalonehavelittle todowiththequalityoradequacyofqualitativedata,andparticularlyinaninterview-based study,numbersmeanlittle(Morrow,2005).Instead,insightsandtheirmeaningfulness dependonthecaseandrichnessofthedataratherthanonsamplesize(Patton,1990). Therefore,aftertheinterviewswererecordedandtranscribed,thedatawerethenreviewed systematicallytounderstandthecontextofthestudy,followedbyathematicanalysiswith anaimofidentifying,analysingandreportingpatternsthatformedthemeswithinthedata (BraunandClarke,2006).Theapproachatthisstagewasinductive. Intheanalysis,themeswerecategorizedconsideringthelifecycleofthecaseCoPandthe evolutionofitsoperations.Particularattentionwaspaidtotextsthatincludeddescriptions aboutrelationsanddynamicswithinthegroup,andtheroleofICTateachstagewas analysed.Theanalysiscombinedindividuallyproducedtextsandpersonalinterviewswith thegroupinterview,therebyendeavouringtocoverthemorewidelyshareddiscourse pertainingtotheCoP(Weber,1990).Inthenextsection,theempiricalresultsregardingthe lifecycleanalysisofthecasecommunityarepresented.Alongwiththeanalysis,some quotationsfromthedataarepresentedtoprovideamorevivid,collectivepictureofthe constructionofmeaning.Theauthenticvoicesofintervieweeshelpinclarifyingthe interpretations.Alldirectquotesareinitalics. 4.Lifecycleanalysis 4.1Anearlystage–motivesandexpectations Theinitialinterestwasindescriptionsregardinghowthecommunitystartedformingitself, andinparticular,whatmotivatedindividualstotakepartinitinthefirstplace.Fromthe individualinterviewdata,fourthemeswereidentifieddescribingthedifferentmotivesfor participation: 1.jointtargetofinterest; 2.communality; 3.interestinjointactionandmotivationtocreatenetworks;and 4.thedevelopmentofone’sskills. Thefirstthemewasexplainedintheindividuallywrittentextsdescribinghowindividuals hadacertaininterest,evenpassion,whichtheysoondiscoveredwassharedbyother peoplewhobecamepartofthecommunity.Theyexpressedhowtheideaappealedto them,depictingitasfresh,innovativeandnew: Westartedaskingpeopletojointhemailinglistandtogenerateideasthere.Itgatheredpeople withsimilarinterest,peoplewhogotexcitedabouttheideaofanelectriccar. Attheearlystage,besidesthesharingofacommoninterest,thesenseofenthusiasmwas important.Onedescribeditasfollows: Ithinkattheearlystageitwasthereciprocalexcitementandenthusiasmthatwasthedriving forceinthecommunityasawhole.Thepassionforacause,andthespiritwascontagious. Attheearlyphase,wewereanenthusiastic,dynamicandmultisectorgroupofpeoplewho workedtogetherforacommongoal. PAGE472 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Regardingthesecondtofourththemes,peoplewereinterestedinjoiningwiththeobjective tocommunicateandworkwithotherindividualswhosharedtheirinterest,had complementaryskillsandknewhowtodeveloptheirowncompetencies.Respondents wroteabouttheperceivedopportunitytonetworkwithnewpeople,leadingtothethird theme,thepossibilityofsynergyandthusoflearning.Thus,theconclusionisthatatthe earlystage,abstractissuessuchasspiritandhuman-andsocialinteraction-relatedissues werestronglyemphasized.Theseissuesweredescribed,forexample,asfollows: Peoplewerethefuel.Sure,thetechnologywasalsotherebehind,butmainlyIgotachanceto meetakindofpeopleIwouldnototherwisehaveevermet. Tome,itwasmainlythesenseofcommunalityandtogetherness. Thecommunitywasavitalenvironmenttodevelopone’sskillsandtocreatenetworks. Iwasexpectingtolearnamoreelectriccars ... anddoingalittlebitofsoftwareforcars ... Iwas expectingactivitiestobesaunaevenings,like-mindedpeople,exchangeofinformationand learningnewthings. Amongtheactivemembers,thefactorsidentifiedweresynergyandtheresultsofgroup thinkingratherthanthinkingalone.Thatcreatedtheformationthattheparticipantsadopted duringtheearlystageoftheCoP. AfteridentifyingthemotivationstojointheCoP,severalexpectationswerediscovered amongtheparticipantsregardingthefutureandachievementsoftheCoP.Basedonthe analysis,thesevariedexpectationswerecategorizedintothefollowingfivegroups: 1. Ideologicalmotivations –Theobjectivewastocontributetosomethingthatwouldmake theworldabetterplace. 2. Technicalproduct –Forsomemembers,theobjectiveandthusthedriverfor participationwasaninterestinbeinginvolvedinbuildinganinnovative,tangible product. 3. Communality –Somepeopleusedthecommunityasanetworkingarena,wherethe objectivewasmeetingpeopleandmakingnewfriends–inotherwords,socializing. 4. Advisors –Somepeoplebelievedthattheyhadsomethingtooffer,butforvarious reasons,chosetoremainoutsidersandadoptedanadvisoryrole. 5. Hangarounds –Somemembers’primarygoalwastoobservethegroupandstay awareofitsactivities. Accordingtotheanalysisinthisstudy,therealisticnatureoftheplanswasvitaltoensuring thatpeoplesharedsimilarexpectations,notonlyideologicallybutatthepracticallevelas well.Tosumup,atfirst,acommoninterestwasenoughtoholdthegrouptogether. However,itsoonbecameclearthatpeoplewereverydifferentandthatparticipationwas basedonvaryingmotivesandthusalsothattheexpectationswerevaried.Inconsequence, thegroup,whichatfirsthadseemedverycohesive,starteddispersing,andpeoplestarted dividingintoactiveandpassivemembers.Intheactivecoregroup,peoplebecamemore familiarwitheachother’sskillsandcompetencies,andpersonalchemistry-relatedissues begantoplayanevenmorepivotalrole.Intervieweesstated: Littlebylittle,quiteearlyactually,itbecameclearthattheultimatereasonstobeinterestedinthe projectwereverydifferent. Everyonehadhisorherownstartingpoints.Infact,weneverevenproperlydiscussedprecisely each’spersonalgoals. Tosumup,thedataindicatethatintheprocessofestablishinganewCoP,ajointinterest andasharedpassionfortheissueathand–notpriorfamiliaritywiththeotherparticipants– arerelevant.Atthebeginning,itisalsocrucialthatsomeonetakesanactiveroleinthe community.AsforthenatureofaCoP,theanalysisrevealsthataCoPwasperceivedas anattractiveforumduetoitsnon-bureaucraticandflexiblewayofallowingpeopletowork VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE473 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)together.Itwasregardedasatypeofforumwhichencouragedandenabled “out-of-the-boxthinkingandoperations”.Atapersonallevel,itwasalsoconsideredaforum whichallowedindividualstoexpressthemselvesincreativeways.However,thedataare interpretedtosuggestthattheexpectationsshouldhavebeendiscussedopenlyand extensivelyatthebeginning.ThiswouldhavebeenparticularlyrelevantinthecaseCoP, because,ultimately,itaimedatachievingaconcretegoal,buildinganelectriccar.Afterthe initialeuphoria,developmentsinthelaterstageprovedthatthisgoalwasnotheldin common,afactorwhich,inturn,resultedinavarietyofproblems,includingissueswiththe functioningandeffectivenessofthegroup. TheroleofICTatthisstagewasmainlytoactasamediumforinforminginterestedparties. Tosomeextent,itwasalsousedforsharingandrefiningideas.However,ithastobestated thateventhoughICT’sroleseemedtodiminishatthisstageofthelifecycle,itwasstill important;itsuseandexistenceupholdsthecoreideaofCOPs,thatofopennessand communality.Itwasalsoacrucialmediumforcontributorswhowereinterestedinthetopic butwhowerenotinthecoregroup. 4.2Maturingstage–roledifferentiation Whenmovingtowardsamaturingstage,thegroupstarteddividingintosub-groupsplaying differentroles.Thecommunitywasgrowingveryquicklybycollectingpeopleinemaillists andcommunicatingbyelectronicchannels.Aslongasthissituationexisted,the participantswereequal.Aftermeetingataphysicalmeetingplace,thecoregrouptook formastheysaweachotherandcommunicatedface-to-face.Thosememberswhowere notabletotakepartinthemeetingsandtheconstructionofthevehicledroppedtothe peripheralgroupandfollowedtheworkofthecommunitythroughthevirtualchannels. Activemembersofthecommunitystoodbetweenthesetwogroupsintheirlevelofactivity andinvolvementinthecommunitywork.Thechemistrybetweenindividualsstartedplaying amoresignificantrole,affectingthedynamicswithinthegroup.Mattersprogressed,the dynamicschangedandintra-groupcriteriaweredevelopedasanewsetofstandardsfor theentirecommunity.Thenthe“rolesandresponsibilities”hadtobedelegated,which constitutedasubstantialchange,becauseatthebeginning,eachmemberdidprettymuch whateverheorshefeltbestsuitedto,andnowthetasksweredividedonadifferentbasis. Onereasonforthiswasthatwithinthecoregroup,peoplegottoknowoneanotherand eachother’sstrengths,whiletheyalsosharedtheideaofwhattheCoPwasallaboutand whatitaimedtoachieve.Thus,thedevelopmentofthecommunity’sparticipationwas basedon“newcriteria”,andthegroupbecamemoreawareofits“skillscapital”.Theyalso learnedwhatkindofexpertisetheylacked,andtheythentriedtorecruitspecialiststo providetheskillsmissingfromthecommunity.Duringthisstage,theactivitiesofthe communityontheinternetplatformsinducedsomepeopletotakeadditionalrolesin productdevelopmentorinproductionitself. Incontrasttothefirststageofthecommunity’slifecycle,atthismaturestage,the participants’concreteeffortsbecamemoreimportantfromthegroupdynamicspointof view.Moreover,havingasharedinterestwasnotthesolecombiningforce. Fromthepointofviewofbothcontinuanceandroledifferentiation,findingaphysical meetingplaceseemedtoplayanimportantrole.Itsrelevanceiseasilyunderstood,asthe caseCoPaimedatbuildingaphysicalproduct.Thedataindicatedthatconcretelyworking togetherhadapositiveeffectonteamspirit,especiallyamongtheactivecoregroupthat hadestablisheditselfatquiteanearlystageofthecommunity.Thesepeopleworkedforthe objectivesinaconcretewayorassumedotherkeyrolesinthecommunity’sperformance. Theyalsobecamefriendswhoserelationshipswerecharacterizedbycompanionshipand trust. However,atthisgeneralstage,theopennessandfreelyavailableinformationstartedto changesuchthatitwasnolongersoopen;amoredistinctdivisionemergedbetween openlysharedinformationandinformationgiventoonlyafew. PAGE474 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Basedontheanalysisofthedifferentmemberroles/involvementcharacterizationsfromall thetexts,thereweredifferentwaystocategorizethecommunityroles. Theclassificationsdivideparticipantsbasedontheiractivenessorpassivenessand differentiatebetweenthecoregroupandthe“outergroup”(thefollowers).Thesegroups wereexplainedasfollows:  Practitioners werepeoplewithmechanicalandtechnicalskillswhoactuallybuiltthecar inagarage.  PRpeople tookcareofpublicityandspurredthepractitioners.  Followers followedthemailinglistsandcommentedontheiroverallactivities. Thepractitionersweredescribedas“ourgang”.Thisgroupwasdoingthepractical installationinthegarage: Thatwaslikeourgang,whichisactuallyahands-onthereinthegarage.Thentherewasthe“PR” andencouragementgroup.AndyouhandledalloftheFinlandiaHallandall,likebytheteamfelt that,wow,getoverthereandthat’sawonderfulthing. Therewerepractitioners,andthentherewasthevisionaries.Alsowehadfollowers,whofollowed itonline,andcommentsonitfromtimetotime.Itcanbesaidthattherecouldbeforsomeonewho hasnevercommentedonanymailinglistorthenmaybeonce. Thesecondgroup’srolewasrelatedtoPRandencouragement.Itwastypicalforthisgroup toparticipatethroughtheinternetwithmailinglists,ablogandawiki.Theydidvaluable workinavirtualworkingenvironmenttospeedupthedevelopmentandpracticalwork,and theyalsofosteredpositivepublicityforthecommunity. Thecommunityalsohadathirdclassificationforthepeoplewhowereneither practitioners nor visionaries.Thisthirdgroupcomprisedthe followers,whofollowedthecommunity onlineandpostedcommentsfromtimetotime.Followerswereanimportantpartofthe community,becausetheywerethesinglelargestgroupofparticipants.Theirimportance stemsfromtheirwideconnectionsoutsideofthecommunity.Therefore,eventhoughthey werepassivemembers,theyreadthedocumentationonlineandhelpedtospreadthe producedinformationandresultsofthecommunitytotheirexistingnetworks: Somepeoplecametherejusttowatchwhattheywereinterestedinhappen. Itwasjustthenapprovedbythestartingassumptionthattherewasnoreasontoattendexcept thattheyhadacommongoal. Itdidnotmatterwhatone’sworldviewwasorwhetherornotitfitexactly. Ontheotherhand,theabovequotationsillustrateinthesummarizeddatathatthediversity oftheCoPitselfwaswelcomedandwasconsideredadesirablething,becausethe intentionhadnotbeentobuildahomogenousgroup. Thecoregroupmembersbegantoorganizethemselvessothatthebestexpertisewas channelledappropriatelyandpushedtheprojectforward.Althoughtheentitystarted actinginamoreorganizedmanner,itisnoteworthythatnohierarchicalmanagement systemwasestablished,thoughthecoregroupcontinuedcollectivelyandunofficiallyto leadthecommunity. However,itwasimportantthatsomesortofcriticismregardingparticipationwasinvolved. Tothinkitover,whatwasmotivatingpeopletoinvolveandgiveadvicestotheothers,even theothershadnotyetexpressedtheirskilllevel.Still,nooneneededtobeevictedfromthe community.Theseobservationsandexperiencescontributedtotheconstructionofacore group: Theearlystagesofanenthusiasticanddynamicmulti-disciplinaryoutfitthatblewtogetherand soughtthesameobjective. VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE475 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Sentimentremainedreasonablygoodforalongtime(2–3years);setbacksanddelayscouldbe overcome. Threetofouryearsafterthe“jacketwasempty”,severalofusandtheoperationwas scattered. Thecommunitystoodoutassoonasafewplayers,whichlookedat“useful”intermsofhisplans. ItiscertainlynotliketothinkthatIwouldhavejoinedthecommunityonlyforselfishreasons, becausetheprojectimplementationwasalsoclosetotheheart. Iwilltry,however,aclosercooperationspecificallythemostknow-howofitsownwithother peoplebecauseyoucanlearnfromthemthemost. However,itstartedtofindoutaboutthefirstyearthatalloriginallyqualifiedcontributedexperts wasnotalwaysunambiguouslycorrectinformation,buttherewerealotofhype,andoutright ignoranceofhisownhidefrom,insomecases. Fourgroupswerealsodiscerned,basedontheirrespectivedegreesofactivity: activists, semi-active,hangarounds and outsiders.Fromtheviewpointofthedifferentroles,in additiontothecreationofthetangibleproduct,itcouldbeconcludedthatthecommunity workedontwolevels: 1. People:Individuals,groupsandtheentirecommunity. 2. Performance:Thedifferentwaysofperformingdiversetasksandthecombinationof expertise. TheparticipantswerefromalloverFinland,andlater,whentheawarenessofthegroup expandedviaICT,fromallovertheworld.Thisgeneratedtheneedfor“newformsofwork” suchasinformationtechnologyandtheuseofvirtuality.Asakindofcounterbalancetothe text,theperformancealsoappearedtobestronglyetchedintraditionalhabits. Theintervieweesfeltexcitedthattheworktookplaceinseveralplaces,fromtheinternetto thephysicalmeetingplaceinthegarage.Infact,theywereveryproudoftheiropen innovationplatformontheinternet,wheretheywereabletopostalltheinterestingand importantthingsinthecommunity. 4.3Investorsandchangeingroupdynamics Theanalysisrevealshowthegroup’sdecisiontoseekexternalfundingmadeacrucial differenceinitsoveralldynamics.Theparticipationofexternalstakeholdersledtoatleast twooutcomes:theexpectationsanddemandtoobtainresultsincreased,andtheneedfor monitoringandreportingemerged.Theoutsiders’inclusioninfluencedasignificant elementoftheoriginalmotivation:thefreedomandinformalityofthecommunityinaction. Atthisstage,theoriginalmembersstartedtopledgeinformationandseektheirownprofit andwaystocreateandmaketheirownbusiness.Whenoutsideinvestorsbecameinvolved intheCoP,thecommunity’sprioritiesalsochanged.Transparencybecameevenmore selective,andmembersofthecommunitybeganwondering,consciouslyorsometimes evenunconsciously,whatinformationwasworthintermsofmoney.Atthispoint, informationwasnolongeravailabletoeveryoneviatheinternettools. Theincreasingdegreeoffragmentationwasrecognized;therewasalotofsuspicion,mutual competition,fragmentingintoschismsandshortageofskills.Membersofthecoregrouptried tochangethisunwantedsituationandtriedtomakecorrectionswithoutsuccess: ThenwhenAmpeeri(company)triedtobegintoownthecommunity,itwenttotheunwanted direction. So,thenwokeupintheschismwithintheCommunity. Yeah,wedidnothavethekindofmodelandthecompetencetohowthisthingnowtakencareof. Itisthisopencommunitybywhomcreatedaprototypeandhowcommercializationisdonenow, thatitgoesfairly ... PAGE476 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Whensomebegantoaskthedrawings,forexample,ontheenginestand,Ekirefusedtoproduce them. Sobecausehehadcommissionedthembypayingmoney. Onepersonpulledthepeainhisnoseandthat’swhereweusedalotoftimetodiscussthat, whetherit’sopenornotitisopen. Therewerethingsthatwewerenotpreparedfor.Yes,wewentalongtoexploretheOpen HardwarefromtheInternetandhowitworks.ButwhenwewerenotOpenSourcepeoplealready, soI’dsaythatitwastheoperatingsoftware-sideofthefamiliaraction. Communitymemberswerenot,bynature,open-sourcepeople,andtheyhaddifficultiesin actingaccordingtocommunityprinciples.Thiswasfollowedbythephenomenathat confirmedthedecompositionofthegroup. 4.4Theendofthe(active)community Afterlosingthegroupdynamic,thecommunitynolongermetattheirphysicalmeeting place,andtheconversionkitprojectwasnotactivelytakencareof.Communitymeetings turnedtopassiveparticipationandweremainlyproppedupbythememberswhohad alreadybecomefriendsduringtheearlyandmaturingstagesofcommunitydevelopment. Eventhoughthecommunitystillexists,itspurposeandnaturehaschanged.Itiscurrently viewedasaforumfordiscussionbyinterestedpartiesinsteadofacommunityaimingat solvingaconcretecase.However,eveninthisform,itisperceivedasimportant,creating aforumforkeepingintouchwiththehopeofsomeonecomingupwithanewenthusiastic planwhichmightbeconcretized.Atthisstage,communitymembersaremoreequaland operatemoreatthesamestage,becausetheyareallparticipatinginthiscommunitywork throughvirtualchannels: Community,inthisstage,inpractice,isinthenon-operatingstate,yetstillaliveatsomelevel.I understandthatnooneanylongerseriouslybelievetotheoriginal500piecesofeCorolla conversionsispossible,butthecommunityhasthesameinterest(electricvehicles)ofpeople with“discussioncommunity”. Inthefuture,ifanyoftheindividualorthegeneraldesirabilityofaspecificinitiativenotcomefrom anyinsideoroutside,evenconversationscancompletelycutoff,whichwouldbeashame. Attheendofthelifecycle,themetaphorofa“lifesupportsystem”maybeusedtodescribe theroleofICT.Bythisismeantthatitcreatesaplatformthroughwhichpeoplecanstayin touch.Italsohelpspreservetheinformationgatheredsofar.Eventhoughtheoriginal purposeofthecommunitywastoproduceaphysicalproduct,socialmediaandother digitalcontentplayanimportantroleinthecontinuityofthecommunity.Atthispoint,the electriccarconversionkitsandproductdevelopmenthavebeendiscontinued,but thecommunitycontinuestolivevirtually.Thecommunity’sstrengthliesinthefactthatthe peoplewhowereinvolvedfromthebeginninghavecontinuedtomaintaincontactonline. Theirknowledgecapitalrosetotheinternationallevel,andcurrently,theeCars–Now! communityisglobal.Thiswouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutknowledgesharingand communicationsovertheinternet.Likemostcommunities,thiscommunityhasmechanisms forcommunitymemberstohelpeachothersolveeverydayproblemsandshareideas.The eCars–Now!communityfocusedonhelpingbycreatingforumslikeFacebookgroupsfor peopletoconnectacrossgeographicalareasandtodecideforthemselveswhat knowledgetoshareandhowtodisseminategoodideastotherestofthecommunity. 5.Lessonslearned Thissectionconcludesbydiscussingsomeissuesthatexplainthechangesinthegroup dynamicsduringthelifecycleoftheeCars–Now!community.Thereweresomepivotal situationswhichcausedbigchanges.Thecommunitywasrelativelysuccessfuland productiveuptothepointwheretheydecidedtoadoptanexternalstakeholder.Although VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE477 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)thecommunitywascreatedwithpassion,theyforgotmanythingsthattheyshouldhave takencareofinthebeginning.Thecommunitywassurprisedbytheexpertiseandmoney theyrequiredforproductdevelopmentandtheneedforaphysicalmeetingplace.Onebig setbackwasthelackofblueprintsanddesigninthedevelopmentprocess.Thesefactors causedthecommunitytodisintegrateandthuspreventeditfromfullyattainingitsgoals.If anyofthesepeopletrytosetupthecommunityagain,theyshouldtakecareofthefactors describedinthissection. Theanalysisinthisstudysuggeststhatattheearlystageofacommunity,theplanscanbe somewhatrandomandevenutopian,butwhenthecommunityevolves,thisuncertainty maybecomeaproblem.First,itaffectstheachievementoftheactual,andinthiscase, concreteresults.Second,uncertaintyandlackofclaritydampenenthusiasmand motivation,whichareofutmostimportanceforvoluntaryparticipation.Whentheoperations evolvedandthelifecycleprogressed,boththephysicalmeetingplaceaswellaspersonal interactionandcommunicationbecameincreasinglyimportant.Thehumanfactorsalso becomemorerelevant,includingissuesofchemistrybetweenpeopleaswellasdifferent skillsandknow-how.Theseissuesareinterpretedasbeingspecificallyrelevantbecause theCoPinquestionaimedatachievingatangibleoutcomeinsteadofsolvinganabstract problem.Also,ifaCoPneedsexternalfundingtoachieveitsgoals,itcanbearguedthat thiswillcreateanewsituationwhichsignificantlyaffectsitsoperations,andparticularlythe groupdynamics.Inthiscase,thatchangeoccurredinanegativeway. Anadditionalinterpretationisthatthetangibleproductandthemanifestationofplanswere crucialinthiscaseandsimultaneouslyplayedanimportantroleinunderstandingthe evolutionofthiscommunity’slifecycle.Tangibilityseemstoacquirethefollowingmeanings fromthedata:  itdemonstratestherealityofplans,whetherornotthegoalsarebeingattained;and  achievingconcreteresultsensuresthecontinuanceofthecommunityandaffects motivation. Finally,itisarguedthatintheearlystage,theideologicalbasisofthegroupwasopenness. Allinformationwasavailableforeveryonewhoregisteredonthecommunityplatformonthe internet.Thiscommunityworkedinthemindsetofopeninnovation.Technical documentationandallothermaterialswereavailableforeveryoneinthecommunity’swiki pages,whichattractedmanypeoplewhoweredelightedbyeCars.Manyadvisors deliveredtechnicalinformationandgoodadvicetothepractitionersofthecommunity throughtheplatform.Thehangaroundswerealsoverywell-informedduringthisstage regardinghowthecoregroupwasworking. 6.Conclusions ThisresearchexaminedgroupdynamicsinaCoPthroughacasestudy.Accordingtothe results,groupdynamicsseemedrelevantinunderstandingwhyaCoPeithermaintainsits vitalityordissipates.Atapersonallevel,thedrivingforcewasindividualisticmotivation,and atthecommunitylevel,itsobjectivesandgoalswerethedrivingforce.Sharedinterestwas alsoacombiningforce.However,sharedinterestwasaffectedbyconflictingmotivesand therealizationofplans,bythepaceatwhichtheCoPevolvedandbythesenseof communality. Theroledifferentiationreallybeganwhenthephysicalmeetingplacewasbroughtintouse. Itmoreclearlyreinforcedtheshapingofthecoregroup,activesandperipherals,because partofthecommunityhadface-to-facemeetingsandtheotherpartonlyparticipatedover theinternet.Afterinvestorinclusion,theknowledgewasnolongeraccessiblethroughthe internet.Thiscausedaninequalitybetweencommunitymembersinthephysicalmeeting placeandinthevirtualchannelsandthereforeaffectedgroupdynamics.Adoptedrolesin thecommunitywerealsoreflectedinthegroupdynamics,whiledifferentstagesofthe community’slifecycleaffectedthemotivationswhichboundthegrouptogether. PAGE478 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Thislifecycleanalysisrevealedfourthemesthatexplainedthechangeinthegroup dynamicsandthedispersalofthecommunity: 1.differentiationanddispersalofinterests; 2.growththatresultedinroledifferentiation; 3.virtualityincommunitydevelopment;and 4.inclusionofinvestors. Thecasecommunityoperatednotonlywithknowledge,butalsowithatangibleproduct, afactwhichisrelevanttoallofthesethemes.Therefore,theconclusionisthatthetangibility ofaproblemtobesolvedseemstoplayapivotalroleinaCoP’soperationsanddynamics. Asaresultofatangibleobjectiveinthecasestudy,outsideinvestorswereincludedinthe operations.TheinterpretationinthisstudyisthatifaCoPneedsexternalfundingtoachieve itsgoals,itcreatesanewsituationwhichsignificantlyaffectsitsoperations,particularlythe groupdynamics.Finally,aCoP’sgroupdynamicsandcohesionarereinforcedbyshared interestsandareweakenedbygoalssetbyexternalstakeholders.Suchgoalsaffectthe members’roles,thusunderminingtheCoP’soriginalidea. AtthebeginningofthelifecycleoftheeCarscommunity,ICTplayedasignificantrole.It helpedincreaseawarenessofthecommunityinthefirstplaceandenabledpeopletojoin in,whichthusenabledthecommunitytoevolve.Whentheoperationsevolvedandthelife cycleprogressed,boththephysicalmeetingplaceaswellaspersonalinteractionand communicationwereemphasizedandbecamemuchmoreimportant.Inthematuring stage,theroleofICT,andespeciallysocialmedia,wastheessentialpartofthecommunity. Thecurrentstudypavesthewayforfurtherresearch.AccordingtoEisenhardt(1989),the aimofthistypeofcasestudyistobuildnewtheoryandsuggesttestablepropositionsfor furtherresearchbasedonin-depthcase-basedanalysisofthesubject,inthisinstance,of asinglecase(Hoon,2013).Thiskindofapproachholdsvalueinimprovingexisting literatureandfosteringitwithnewknowledgebyidentifyingandintroducingnewtheoretical insights(Piekkari etal.,2009; Birkinshaw etal.,2011; Hoon,2013; Reddy,2015).Whilea singlecaseitselfisnotofinterest,itsvalueisbasedontheabstractions,thatisthe conclusionsandtransfersthatcanbedrawnbasedonthecase. Inpriorstudies,theCoPgroupstructurehasbeenstudied,forexample,throughrolesand statusdifferentials(JexandBritt,2008),and Wenger etal. (2002) haveidentifiedthreemain levelsofcommunityparticipation.However,thepresentstudyalsoidentifieddifferentways ofcharacterizingcommunityparticipation,whichisalsorelevantfromthegroupdynamics pointofview.Thus,thetopicshouldbestudiedfurther.Groupdynamicsingeneral,asthey relatetothesuccessofCoPs,shouldbealsoinvestigatedfurther.Additionalstudiesshould implementtheinclusionofexternalresourcesinthecommunity.Furtherresearchisalso neededtoinvestigatetangibleandintangibleoutcomesachievedthroughCoPs.Muchof theavailableresearchwasconductedovershortperiods,soprolongedinteractionsina CoPcontextcouldshowdifferentresults. References Amin,A.andRoberts,J.(2008),“Knowinginaction:beyondcommunitiesofpractice”, Research Policy,Vol.37No.2,pp.353-369. Ardichvili,A.,Page,V.andWentling,T.(2003),“Motivationandbarrierstoparticipationinvirtual knowledge-sharingcommunitiesofpractice”, JournalofKnowledgeManagement,Vol.7No.1, pp.64-77. Bakardjieva,M.andFeenberg,A.(2002),“Communitytechnologyanddemocraticrationalization”, InformationSociety,Vol.18,pp.181-192. Barbour,R.S.andKitzinger,J.(1999), DevelopingFocusGroupResearch.Politics,Theoryand Practice,Sage,London. VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE479 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Barrett,M.,Cappleman,S.,Shoib,G.andWalsham,G.(2004),“Learninginknowledgecommunities: managingtechnologyandcontext”, EuropeanManagementJournal,Vol.22No.1,pp.1-11. Bass,B.M.(1960), Leadership,Psychology,andOrganizationalBehaviour,HarperandRow,New York,NY. Birkinshaw,J.,Brannen,M.Y.andTung,R.L.(2011),“Fromadistanceandgeneralizabletoupclose andgrounded:reclaimingaplaceforqualitativemethodsininternationalbusinessresearch”, Journal ofInternationalBusinessStudies,Vol.42No.5,pp.573-581. Blanchard,A.(2004),“Blogsasvirtualcommunities:identifyingasenseofcommunityintheJulie/Julia project”,availableat: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogs_as_virtual.html (accessed12June 2015). Blanchard,A.andHoran,T.(1998),“Socialcapitalandvirtualcommunities”, SocialScienceComputer Review,Vol.16,pp.293-307. Blanchard,A.andMarkus,M.L.(2003),“Theexperienced‘sense’ofavirtualcommunity: characteristicsandprocesses”, TheDATABASEforAdvancesinInformationSystems, ACM. Braun,V.andClarke,V.(2006),“Usingthematicanalysisinpsychology”, QualitativeResearchin Psychology,Vol.3No.2,pp.77-101. Brooks,I.(2009), OrganizationalBehavior:Individual,GroupsandOrganisation,4thed.,PrenticeHall, Harlow. Brown,J.S.andDuguid,P.(1991),“Organizationallearningandcommunitiesofpractice:towardsa unifiedviewofworking,learningandinnovation”, OrganizationScience,Vol.2,pp.40-57. Brown,J.S.andDuguid,P.(1998),“Organizingknowledge”, CaliforniaManagementReview,Vol.40 No.3,pp.90-111. Brown,J.S.andDuguid,P.(2001),“Knowledgeandorganization:asocial-practiceperspective”, OrganizationScience,Vol.12No.20,pp.198-213. Burk,M.andSutton,G.(2000),“Soyouthinkyouwanttobeacommunity[...]?”,WhitePaper,Federal HighwayAdministration,WA. Cartwright,D.andZander,A.(1960), GroupDynamics,3rded.,HarperandRow,NewYork,NY. Correia,A.M.R.,Paulos,A.andMesquita,A.(2010),“Virtualcommunitiesofpractice:investigating motivationsandconstraintsintheprocessesofknowledgecreationandtransfer”, ElectronicJournal ofKnowledgeManagement,Vol.8No.1,pp.11-20. Creswell,J.W.(1994), ResearchDesign:QualitativeandQuantitativeApproaches,Sage,Thousand Oaks,CA. Efimova,L.andFiedler,S.(2003),“Learningwebs:learninginweblognetworks”,inKommers,P, Isaias,P.andNunes,M.B.(Eds), ProceedingsoftheIADISInternationalConferenceWebBased Communities2004, IADISPress,Lisbon,pp.490-494. Eisenhardt,K.M.(1989),“Buildingtheoriesfromcasestudyresearch”, AcademyofManagement Review,Vol.14No.4,pp.532-550. Eisenhardt,K.andGraebner,M.(2007),“Theorybuildingfromcases:opportunitiesandchallenges”, AcademyofManagementJournal,Vol.50No.1,pp.25-32. Etzioni,A.andEtzioni,O.(1999),“Face-to-faceandcomputer-mediatedcommunities:acomparative analysis”, InformationSociety,Vol.15,pp.241-248. Godwin-Jones,B.(2003),“Emergingtechnologies:blogsandwikis:environmentsforon-line collaboration”, LanguageLearningandTechnology,Vol.7No.2,pp.12-16. Godwin-Jones,B.(2008),“Emergingtechnologies:Web-writing2.0:enabling,documenting,and assessingwritingonline”, LanguageLearningandTechnology,Vol.12No.2,pp.7-13. Greenberg,J.andBaron,R.A.(2008), BehaviorinOrganizations,9thed.,Prentice-Hall,UpperSaddle, River,NJ. Hafkesbrink,J.andSchroll,M.(2011),“Innovation3.0:embeddingintocommunity knowledge-collaborativeorganizationallearningbeyondopeninnovation”, JournalofInnovation EconomicsandManagement,Vol.1,pp.55-92. PAGE480 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Hahn,M.(2010),“Groupnormsinorganizations”,availableat: http://ezinearticles.com/?Group-Norms- in-Organizations&id5348119 (accessed2November2014). Hogg,M.A.andWilliams,K.D.(2000),“FromItowe:socialidentityandthecollectiveself”, Group Dynamics:Theory,Research,andPractice,Vol.4No.1,p.81. Hoon,C.(2013),“Meta-synthesisofqualitativecasestudies:anapproachtotheorybuilding”, OrganizationalResearchMethods,Vol.16No.4,pp.522-556. Jayasingam,S.,Ansari,M.A.,Ramayah,T.andJantan,M.(2012),“Knowledgemanagementpractices andperformance:aretheytrulylinked?”, KnowledgeManagementResearch&Practice,Vol.11No.3, pp.255-264. Jewell,M.andWalker,D.H.(2005),“Communityofpracticesoftwaremanagementtools:aUK constructioncompanycasestudy”, KnowledgeManagementintheConstructionIndustry:A Socio-technicalPerspective,IGP,Hershey,pp.112-129. Jex,S.andBritt,T.(2008), OrganizationalPsychology:AScientist-practitionerApproach,2nded., JohnWiley&Sons,Hoboken,NJ. Kirschner,P.A.andLai,K.-W.(2007),“Onlinecommunitiesofpracticeineducation”, Technology, PedagogyandEducation,Vol.16No.2,pp.127-131. Kodama,M.(2005),“Newknowledgecreationthroughleadership-basedstrategiccommunity–a caseofnewproductdevelopmentinITandmultimediabusinessfields”, Technovation,Vol.25, pp.895-908. Kollock,P.andSmith,M.A.(1996),“Managingthevirtualcommons:cooperationandconflictin computercommunities”,inHerring,S.(Ed.) Computer-MediatedCommunication:Linguistic,Social andCrossCulturalPerspectives,JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam,pp.109-128. Komito,L.(1998),“Thenetasaforagingsociety”, InformationSociety,Vol.14,pp.97-106. Komito,L.(2011),“Socialmediaandmigration:virtualcommunity2.0”, JournaloftheAmericanSociety forInformationScienceandTechnology,Vol.62No.6,pp.1075-1086. Lam,A.(2000),“Tacitknowledge,organisationallearningandsocietalinstitutions:anintegrated framework”, OrganizationStudies,Vol.21No.3,pp.487-513. Lave,J.andWenger,E.(1991), SituatedLearning:LegitimatePeripheralParticipation,Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge. Lesser,E.andPrusack,L.(1999),“Communitiesofpractice,socialcapitalandorganizational knowledge”, InformationSystemsReview,Vol.1No.1,pp.3-10. Levine,J.M.andMoreland,R.L.(1998),“Smallgroups”,inGilbert,D.,Fiske,S.andLindzey,G.(Eds), TheHandbookofSocialPsychology,4thed.,McGraw-Hill,Boston,MA,pp.415-469. Liaw,S.S.,Chen,G.D.andHuang,H.M.(2008),“Users’attitudestowardweb-basedcollaborative learningsystemsforknowledgemanagement”, ComputersandEducation,Vol.50No.3, pp.950-961. McDermott,R.(2000),“Plannedspontaneity”, KnowledgeManagementReview,Vol.3No.4,p.5. McLure,M.,Wasko,M.andFaraj,S.(2000),“Itiswhatonedoes:whypeopleparticipateandhelp othersinelectroniccommunitiesofpractice”, TheJournalofStrategicInformationSystems,Vol.9 No.2,pp.155-173. Mabry,E.A.andBarnes,R.E.(1980), DynamicsofSmallGroupCommunication,PrenticeHall, EnglewoodCliffs,NJ. Majchrzak,A.,Jarvenpaa,S.L.andHollingshead,A.B.(2007),“Coordinatingexpertiseamong emergentgroupsrespondingtodisasters”, OrganizationScience,Vol.18No.1,pp.147-161. Michaelides,R.andKehoe,D.(2007),“Internetcommunitiesandopeninnovation:aninformation systemdesignmethodology”, 6thIEEE/ACISInternationalConferenceonComputerandInformation Science,2007ICIS2007,IEEE,pp.769-775. Morrow,S.L.(2005),“Qualityandtrustworthinessinqualitativeresearchincounselingpsychology”, JournalofCounselingPsychology,Vol.52No.2,p.250. Nonaka,I.andTakeuchi,H.(1995), TheKnowledge-creatingCompany:HowJapaneseCompanies CreatetheDynamicsofInnovation,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY. VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE481 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Palacios-Marqués,D.,Soto-Acosta,P.andMerigó,J.M.(2015),“Analyzingtheeffectsof technological,organizationalandcompetitionfactorsonwebknowledgeexchangeinSMEs”, TelematicsandInformatics,Vol.32No.1,pp.23-32. Patton,M.(1990), QualitativeEvaluationandResearchMethods,Sage,NewburyPark,CA. Piekkari,R.,Welch,C.andPaavilainen,E.(2009),“Thecasestudyasdisciplinaryconvention: evidencefrominternationalbusinessjournals”, OrganizationalResearchMethods,Vol.12No.3, pp.567-589. Puusa,A.andEerikäinen,M.(2010),“Istacitknowledgereallytacit?”, ElectronicJournalofKnowledge Management,Vol.8No.3,pp.307-318. Reddy,K.S.(2015),“Revisitingandreinforcingthefarmersfoxtheory:astudy(test)ofthreecasesin cross-borderinboundacquisitions”,MPRAPaper,availableat: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ pramprapa/63561.htm Richardson,W.(2005), Blogs,Wikis,Podcasts,andOtherPowerfulWebToolsforClassrooms,Corwin Press,ThousandOaks,CA. Saint-Onge,H.andWallace,D.(2003), LeveragingCommunitiesofPracticeforStrategicAdvantage, Butterworth-Heinemann,Burlington,MA. Sandelowski,M.(1995),“Focusonqualitativemethods:samplesizesinqualitativeresearch”, ResearchinNursing&Health,Vol.18,pp.179-183. Schuler,D.(1996), NewCommunityNetworks:WiredforChange,ACMPress,NewYork,NY. Schwartz,S.H.(2007),“Valueorientations:measurement,antecedentsandconsequencesacross nations”,inJowell,R.,Roberts,C.,Fitzgerald,R.andEva,G.(Eds), MeasuringAttitudes Cross-nationally–LessonsfromtheEuropeanSocialSurvey,Sage,London. Schwen,T.M.andHara,N.(2003),“Communityofpractice:ametaphorforonlinedesign?”, The InformationSociety,Vol.19,pp.257-270. Sherif,M.(1936), ThePsychologyofSocialNorms,Harper&Row,NewYork,NY. Sigala,M.andChalkiti,K.(2014),“InvestigatingtheexploitationofWeb2.0forknowledge managementintheGreektourismindustry:anutilisation-importanceanalysis”, ComputersinHuman Behaviour,Vol.30No.1,pp.800-812. Soto-Acosta,P.,Colomo-Palacios,R.andPopa,S.(2014a),“Webknowledgesharinganditseffecton innovation:anempiricalinvestigationinSMEs”, KnowledgeManagementResearch&Practice,Vol.12 No.1,pp.103-113. Soto-Acosta,P.,Perez-Gonzalez,D.andPopa,S.(2013),“DeterminantsofWeb2.0technologiesfor knowledgesharinginSMEs”, ServiceBusiness,Vol.8No.3,pp.425-438. Soto-Acosta,P.,Perez-Gonzalez,D.andPopa,S.(2014b),“DeterminantsofWeb2.0technologiesfor knowledgesharinginSMEs”, ServiceBusiness,Vol.8No.3,pp.425-438. Soto-Acosta,P.,Popa,S.andPalacios-Marqués,D.(2015),“E-business,organizationalinnovationand firmperformanceinmanufacturingSMEs:anempiricalstudyinSpain”, TechnologicalandEconomic DevelopmentofEconomy.doi: 10.3846/20294913.2015.1074126. Swan,J.,Scarbrough,H.andRobertson,M.(2002),“Theconstructionof‘communitiesofpractice’in themanagementofinnovation”, ManagementLearning,Vol.33No.4,pp.477-496. Thompson,M.(2005),“Structuralandepistemicparametersincommunitiesofpractice”, Organization Science,Vol.16No.2,pp.151-164. Uzzi,B.(1997),“Socialstructureandcompetitionininterfirmnetworks:theparadoxof embeddedness”, AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.42No.1,pp.35-67. Wageman,R.(1995),“Interdependenceandgroupeffectiveness”, AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, Vol.40No.1,pp.145-180. Weber,R.P.(1990), BasicContentAnalysis,SagePublications,NewburyPark,CA. Wenger,E.(1998a), CommunitiesofPractice:Learning,Meaning,andIdentity,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge. Wenger,E.(1998b),“Communitiesofpractice:learningasasocialsystem”, SystemsThinker,Vol.9 No.5,pp.2-3. PAGE482 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT VOL.20NO.32016 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)Wenger,E.,McDermott,R.andSnyder,W.M.(2002), CultivatingCommunitiesofPractice:AGuideto ManagingKnowledge,HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,Boston,MA. Wenger,E.C.andSnyder,W.M.(2000),“Communitiesofpractice:theorganizationalfrontier”, Harvard BusinessReview,pp.139-145. Wilson,S.M.andPeterson,L.(2002),“Theanthropologyofonlinecommunities”, AnnualReview Anthropology,Vol.31,pp.449-467. Yin,R.K.(2009), CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods,4thed.,Sage,ThousandOaks. Yin,R.(1994), CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods,2nded.,Sage,ThousandOaks,CA. Zahra,S.A.andGeorge,G.(2002),“Absorptivecapacity:areview,reconceptualization,and extension”, AcademyofManagementReview,Vol.27No.2,pp.185-203. Furtherreading Campbell,M.andUys,P.(2007),“IdentifyingsuccessfactorsofICTindevelopingalearning community:casestudyCharlesSturtuniversity”, Campus-WideInformationSystems,Vol.24No.1, pp.17-26. Quintane,E.,Casselman,R.M.,Sebastian,B.R.andNylund,P.A.(2011),“Innovationasa knowledge-basedoutcome”, JournalofKnowledgeManagement,Vol.15No.6,pp.928-947. Correspondingauthor IlpoPohjolacanbecontactedat: [email protected] Forinstructionsonhowtoorderreprintsofthisarticle,pleasevisitourwebsite: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Orcontactusforfurtherdetails: [email protected] VOL.20NO.32016 JOURNALOFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT PAGE483 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 21:01 26 March 2017 (PT)