Communities of practice: Performance and evolution

  • Bernardo A. Huberman
  • Tad Hogg


We present a detailed model of collaboration in communities of practice and we examine its dynamic consequences for the group as a whole. We establish the existence of a novel mechanism that allows the community to naturally adapt to growth, specialization, or changes in the environment without the need for central controls. This mechanism relies on the appearance of a dynamic instability that initiates an exploration of novel interactions, eventually leading to higher performance for the community as a whole.


Artificial Intelligence Dynamic Consequence Central Control Detailed Model Dynamic Instability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, T. (1984),Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Argote, L., and D. Epple. (1990), “Learning Curves in Manufacturing.Science, 247(4945)920–924.Google Scholar
  3. Blau, P.M., and W.R. Scott (1962).Formal Organizations. Chandler, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  4. Boorman, S. and H.C. White. (1976), “Social Structures from Multiple Networks: II. Role Structures.American Journal of Sociology, 81:1384–1446.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, T., and G.M. Stalker. (1961),The management of Innovation. Tavistok, London.Google Scholar
  6. Burt, R.S. (1980), “Models of Network Structure.Annual Review of Sociology, 6:79–141.Google Scholar
  7. Clearwater, S.H., B.A. Huberman, and T. Hogg. (1991), “Cooperative Solution of Constraint Satisfaction Problems.Science, 254:1181–1183.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J.E., and C.M. Newman. (1984), “The Stability of Large Random Matrices and Their Products.”Annals of Probability, 12:283–310.Google Scholar
  9. Crane, D. (1972),Invisible colleges, diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Crozier, M. (1964),The Phenomenon of Bureaucracy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckert, P. (1994), “Trajectory and Forms of Institutional Participation.” In Lisa Crockett and Ann Crouter (eds.),Pathways Through Adolescence: Individual Developments in Relation to Social Contexts. Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  12. Furedi, Z., and K. Komlos. (1981), “The Eigenvalues of Random Symmetric Matrices.Combinatorica, 1: 233–241.Google Scholar
  13. Glance, N.S., and B.A. Huberman. (1994), “Dynamics of Social Dilemmas.Scientific American, 270(3): 76–81.Google Scholar
  14. Glance, N.S., and B.A. Huberman. (1994), “Social Dilemmas and Fluid Organizations.” In K. Carley and M. Prietula (eds.),Computational Organization Theory, pages 217–239. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey.Google Scholar
  15. Gross, E. (1953), “Some Functional Consequences of Primary Controls in Formal Work Organizations.”American Sociological Review, 18:368–373.Google Scholar
  16. Hayek, F.A. (1937), “Economics and Knowledge,”Economica, New Series, 4:33–54.Google Scholar
  17. Hogg, T., and C.P. Williams. (1993), “Solving the Really Hard Problems with Cooperative Search. InProc. of the 11th Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI93), pages 231–236, Menlo Park, CA. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hogg, T., B.A. Huberman, and J.M. McGlade. (1989), “The Stability of Ecosystems.”Proc. of the Royal Society of London, B237:43–51.Google Scholar
  19. Holmstrom, B., and P. Milgrom. (1950), “The Firm as an Incentive System.”American Economic Review, 84:972–991.Google Scholar
  20. Homans, G.C. (1988),The Human Group. Harcourt, 1950.Google Scholar
  21. Huberman, Bernardo (1988),The Ecology of Computation. North-Holland, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Huberman, B.A. (1989), “The Adaptation of Complex Systems.” In B. Goodwin and P. Saunders (eds.),Theoretical Biology. Epigenetic and Evolutionary Order from Complex Systems Edinburgh University Press, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  23. Hutchins, E. (1991), “Organizing Work by Adaptation.”Organization Science, 2:14–39.Google Scholar
  24. Juhasz, F. (1982), “On the Asymptotic Behavior of the Spectra of Non-symmetric Random (0, 1) Matrices.”Discrete Mathematics, 41:161–165.Google Scholar
  25. Kaufer, D.S. (1993),Communication at a Distance. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Kissinger, H.A. (1979),The White House Years Little, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Kornfeld, W. (1981). “The Use of Parallelism to Implement Heuristic Search.” Technical Report 627, MIT AI Lab.Google Scholar
  28. Kreiner, K., and M. Schultz. (1993), “Informal Collaboration in R&D: The Formation of Networks Across Organizations.Organization Studies, 14:189–209.Google Scholar
  29. Lave, J. and E. Wenger. (1991),Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Levinthal, D., and J.G. March (1981), “A Model of Adaptive Organizational Change.”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 2:307–333.Google Scholar
  31. Malone, T.W., and S.A. Smith. (1988), “Modeling the Performance of Organizational Structures.Operations Research, 36(3):421.Google Scholar
  32. March, J.G. (1981), “Footnotes to Organizational Change.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:536–577.Google Scholar
  33. Mehta, M.L. (1967),Random Matrices and the Statistical Theory of Energy Levels. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Orr, J.E. (1986), “Narratives at Work: Storytelling as Cooperative Diagnostic Activity.” InProceedings of the conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.Google Scholar
  35. Ouchi, W.G. (1980), “Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 25:129–141.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, E.M. (1983),Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  37. Salas, S.L., and E. Hille (1978),Calculas: One and Several Variables. John Wiley, NY, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  38. Schelling, T.C. (1978),Micromotives and Macrobehavior, W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. United States.Google Scholar
  39. Scott, W.R. (1992),Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  40. Shrager, J., T. Hogg, and B.A. Huberman. (1988), “A graph-dynamic model of the power law of practice and the problem-solving fan-effect.”Science, 242(4877):414–416.Google Scholar
  41. Weidlich, W., and G. Haag. (1983),Concepts and Models of a Quantitative Sociology. The Dynamics of Interacting Populations. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  42. Zelditch, M. (1969), “Can You Really Study an Army in the Laboratory?” In Amitai Etzioni (ed.),A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations. Holt, Reinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardo A. Huberman
    • 1
  • Tad Hogg
    • 1
  1. 1.Dynamics of Computation GroupXerox Palo Alto Research CenterPalo Alto

Personalised recommendations