The Methodological Challenges Related to Assess the Outcomes of Knowledge Management Initiatives: The Case of Communities of Practice

  • Patrick Mbassegue
  • Mickaël GardoniEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 540)


In any organizational project where the use of limited resources represents a challenge, it’s necessary to assess the outcomes generated. The methodological approach on how to assess outcomes reveals many questions, namely: What is the best way to do so? What dimensions to assess? From what criteria? How to estimate them? In the case of communities of practice (CoP), these questions become accurate. Indeed, in the case of Communities of Practice, the participants represent the cornerstone of the project because there are the ones who generate knowledge. So to assess outcomes generated by CoP within an organization, it’s necessary to identify an adapted methodological frame which will allow to take into account the critical aspects of the CoP and the user perspective. Our proposal aims to present a hybrid path (qualitative-quantitative) in order to minimize the limits and uplift advantages related to both approaches. The addition of these two approaches must generate a more stronger one and a better reliability of concept. For that purpose, the structure of the article concerns the following aspects: the context of knowledge management initiatives and particularly communities of practice; notions of assessment and outcomes; the current methodologies used to assess the outcomes of the CoP as well as their limits; the criteria to be respected for the choice as a strong methodology; the choice of a new approach (qualitative-quantitative) and its future application in the CoP.


Communities of practice Mixed methodology Assessment 


  1. 1.
    Folkard, B., Keraron, Y., Mantoulan, D., Dubois, R.: The need for improved integration between PLM and KM: a PLM services provider point of view. In: Rivest, L., Bouras, A., Louhichi, B. (eds.) PLM 2012. IAICT, vol. 388, pp. 85–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernell-Garcia, P., Fan, I.-S.: Practitioner requirements for integrated knowledged based engineering in PLM. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 3(1), 3–20 (2008). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beylier, C., Pourroy, F., Villeneuve, F., Mille, A.: A collaboration centered approach to manage engineering knowledge; a case study of an engineering SME. J. Eng. Des. 20(6), 523–542 (2003). Scholar
  4. 4.
    McMahon, C., Lowe, A., Culley, S.: Knowledge management in engineering design: personalization and codification. J. Eng. Des. 15(4), 307–325 (2003). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trotta, M.G.: PLM: sustainability and knowledge management as keys in a complex system of product development. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 3(2), 309–322 (2010). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carrillo, J.E., Gaimon, C.: Improving manufacturing performance through process change and knowledge creation. Manag. Sci. 46, 265–288 (2000). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marqués, D.P., Simon, F.J.G.: The effect of knowledge management practices on firm performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 10(3), 143–156 (2006). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lesser, E.L., Storck, J.: Communities Of practice and organizational performance. IBM Syst. J. 40, 831–841 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siddique, C.M.: Knowledge management initiatives in the United Arab Emirates: a baseline study. J. Knowl. Manag. 16(5), 702–723 (2012). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zboralski, K., Gemunden, G.H.: Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information and Knowledge Management. IDEA GROUP Reference, London (2006).
  11. 11.
    Heisig, P.: Harmonisation of knowledge management. comparing 160 knowledge management frameworks around the globe. J. Knowl. Manag. 13(4), 4–31 (2009).
  12. 12.
    Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, Y.M.: Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fontaine, M.A., Millen, D.R.: Understanding the value of communities: a look at both sides of the cost/benefit equation. Knowl. Manag. Rev. 5(3), 24–27 (2002). 10.11/1985500Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chetty, L., Mearns, M.: Using communities of practice towards the next level of knowledge management maturity. SA J. Inf. Manag. 14(1), 503–509 (2002). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell, J., Wood, S.: Benefits of Communities of Practice. John Mitchell & Associates, Toronto (2001).
  16. 16.
    Harlow, H.: The effect of tacit knowledge on firm performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 12(1), 148–163 (2008). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaim, H., Tatoglu, E., Zaim, S.: Performance of knowledge management practices: a causal analysis. J. Knowl. Manag. 11(6), 54–67 (2007).
  18. 18.
    Pillania, R.K.: Information technology strategy for knowledge management in India automotive components SMEs. Knowl. Process. Manag. 15(3), 203–210 (2008). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teddie, C., Tashakkori, A.: Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. Integrating Quantitative Approaches in The Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molina-Azorin, J.: The use and added value of mixed methods in management research. Electron. J. Mix. Methods Res. 5(1), 7–24 (2010). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verburg, R.M., Andriessen, J.H.E.: The assessment of communities of practice. Knowl. Process Manag. 13(1), 13–25 (2006). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yanklin, S., Igel, B.: Communities of practice purposefully designed for improving business performance. Knowl. Process Manag. 19(4), 189–202 (2012). Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDermott, R.: Measuring the impacts of communities. How to draw meaning from measures of communities of practice. Knowl. Manag. Rev. 5(2), 26–29 (2002).
  25. 25.
    Lee, P.-S., Tseng, S.-M.: The effects of knowledge management capability and dynamic capability on organizational performance. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 27(2), 158–179 (2014). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang, J.-T.: The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness. J. Knowl. Manag. 11(2), 83–90 (2007). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zack, M., McKeen, J., Singh, S.: Knowledge management and organizational performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 13(6), 392–409 (2009). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goldoni, V., Oliveira, M.: Knowledge management metrics in software development companies in Brazil. J. Knowl. Manag. 14(2), 301–313 (2010). Scholar
  29. 29.
    McKellar, K., Pitzul, K., Yi, Y., Cole, D.: Evaluating communities of practice and knowledge networks: a systematic scoping review of evaluation frameworks. EcoHealth 11, 383–399 (2014). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perrin, A.: The practices of knowledge managers in lafarge. J. Knowl. Manag. 16(2), 204–214 (2012). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yahya, S., Goh, W.K.: Managing human resources towards achieving knowledge management. J. Knowl. Manag. 6(5), 457–468 (2000). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tashakkori, A., Teddie, C.: Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecole PolytechniqueMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Ecole de Technologie SupérieureMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations