Knowledge Networks

Context:

People tend to search for information about their work by communicating with other people - using their existing contacts and informal conversations.

•••

‘Social relationships are important to the ability of individuals to gather knowledge and to perform their work.  The creation of knowledge is innately a social process among individuals.’ Robin Tiegland, 2003. [8]

In every working environment, people have always gathered together in an informal way in order to learn from each other.  Such networks are sometimes described as ‘communities of practice’ - informal groups which exist alongside the formal hierarchy of the organisation, but are invisible to it, such as the office grape-vine, mentoring relationships, and some CPD networks.  A community of practice is more than a group of colleagues - Tom Stewart explains the term in this way: ‘Groups that learn, communities of practice, have special characteristics.  They emerge of their own accord: Three, four, twenty, maybe thirty people find themselves drawn by one another by a force that’s both social and professional; they collaborate directly, use one another as sounding boards, teach each other, strike out together to explore new subject matter … you cannot create communities like this by fiat, but they are easy to destroy.  They are among the most important structures of any organization where thinking matters; but they are, almost invariably, subversive of its formal structures and strictures.’  [9]

Knowledge networks, and the knowledge which they produce, can vary depending on how their members are connected.  The term ‘community’ denotes a network where people tend to interact face-to-face and social ties between members are fairly strong, whereas the term ‘network of practice’ is a more general concept, which includes groups where social ties are weaker (such as professional bodies), as well as electronic networks of practice, which are connected by the Internet.  The characteristics of knowledge created and owned by these different types of network will vary.  Knowledge owned by communities is usually confined within the group and concentrated in a small number of people at the core of the community.  In an electronic network, everyone is connected to everyone else and knowledge is less excluded, so that the products of these networks tend to resemble the characteristics of a public good. 

Not all knowledge networks emerge spontaneously - it often happens that managers recognise their importance and encourage their growth, which is the situation with the RIBA architectural research wiki.  However, knowledge networks cannot be managed like project teams and other formal work groups: they do not produce deliverables, agendas, or work to deadlines; they are not accountable to the formal organisation.  Having recognised their importance, the best way for managers to cultivate such groups is to give them the resources they need and allow them to manage themselves – as Tom Stewart puts it: ‘Fertilise the soil but stay away from the actual husbandry.’ [9]

Therefore:

Identify and engage the relevant communities of practice inside and outside the RIBA; provide them with the resources they need – particularly tools that will encourage them to connect more closely with the project; don’t attempt to tie them into the formal organisation.

•••

Whilst many organisations have built electronic networks and formal knowledge sharing systems, few of these systems recognise the informal, social networks which already exist; however, this situation is changing - refer to the pattern Knowledge Management.