Content uploaded by Abobakr Aljuwaiber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abobakr Aljuwaiber on Jan 02, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Enabling Knowledge
Management Initiatives
through Organizational
Communities of Practice
Abobakr Aljuwaiber1
Abstract
Learning the concept of organizational communities of practice (OCoP) is very effective but too
complicated when it comes to implementation. Challenges arise when cultivating OCoPs and
creating effective communication processes, particularly within an organization that has a traditional
hierarchy. Literature on knowledge management (KM) fails to provide an inclusive comprehension
of the significance of OCoPs. Thus, the current exploratory research aims to determine how
organizational contexts can enable or disable the establishment and development of OCoPs. This
article is built on communities of practice (CoP) theory to study the phenomenon of intentionally
established OCoPs within large organizations. The case studies conducted for this research involved
two companies based in Saudi Arabia, with intentionally created OCoPs. The selected cases assist
in providing a holistic understanding of the influential role of organizational context in enabling
OCoP activities, using semi-structured interviews, document reviews and field notes. The study
findings support an integrated framework to assist organizations in establishing effective OCoPs. Its
five phases include establishment, enforcement, recognition, maintenance and sustainability, representing
OCoP development phases. The resulting framework organized 16 enabling or disabling factors in
OCoP development. This article expands the focus of research beyond traditional CoPs, to investigate
the intentional establishment of OCoPs within organizations and understand opportunities and
challenges that enable OCoPs. The study argues that organizations implementing OCoPs should
offer a comprehensive, long-term strategy for KM initiatives that leads to designing OCoP activities
that enable better alignment with the organization’s business plan. A company can shape perceptions
and behaviours by establishing the organizational context for social interaction. Thus, this article
extends the perspective on developing OCoPs within organizations and argues that the role of
middle management requires more thoughtfulness about OCoP research.
Keywords
Organizational communities of practice, knowledge sharing, knowledge management, organizational
context
Case
South Asian Journal of
Business and Management Cases
10(3) 260–275, 2021
© 2021 Birla Institute of Management Technology
Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/22779779211036961
journals.sagepub.com/home/bmc
1 Taibah University, Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Corresponding author:
Abobakr Aljuwaiber, Taibah University, 3698, Madinah, postal code 42364-7650, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
E-mail: abobakrju@gmail.com
Aljuwaiber 261
Introduction
Knowledge management (KM) plays a significant role in enhancing existing expertise and knowledge that
may give rise to competitive advantage. It also cultivates a better work environment that includes reusing
knowledge at opportune moments. However, organizations strive to enhance their learning process to main-
tain their competitiveness (Macpherson et al., 2019). Accumulated knowledge is crucial in building new ideas
or learning about individuals and organizations. An example of group learning is the creation of knowledge
when employees share practical experiences and ideas (Peñarroja et al., 2019). Interactions influence the
knowledge creation process, and thus, organizational groups contribute to retaining shared knowledge.
Research on the subject includes broad investigation of communities of practice (CoPs) as an instru-
ment to enhance organizational knowledge sharing. Wenger et al. (2002) describe it as a ‘group of people
who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (p. 128). Wang et al. (2019) emphasize that
organizational communities of practice (OCoPs) cannot exist without effective communication among
community members.
Applying CoP’s theoretical significance is very challenging. Several issues surround creating an
appropriate organizational context within a traditional hierarchy (Bardon & Borzillo, 2016). As Lee and
Edmondson (2017) stress, flat organizations inspire employees to organize their work and promote open-
ness towards ideas and sharing experiences. However, recent literature differentiates traditional CoPs
from OCoPs (Macpherson et al., 2019; Peñarroja et al., 2019).
The intentional creation and management of OCoPs can help to achieve strategic knowledge-sharing
objectives (Bolisani & Scarso, 2014). Aljuwaiber (2016) identifies organizational culture, structure,
information technology and senior management as fundamental dimensions of promoting knowledge
sharing, demonstrating the importance of an organizational context in which OCoPs can function effec-
tively. More recent, evidence shows OCoPs’ relation to knowledge boundaries at different stages
(i.e., exploration, design, decision-making, implementation). Consequently, Schwarz and Legner (2020)
urge further research on these phases, and this study revolves around that recommendation.
This study aims to show how improving organizational context enables OCoPs to thrive in the busi-
ness milieu, mainly discussing current thought on the role of OCoPs within an organization, using two
case studies. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions: (a) to what extent does
organizational context contribute to the creation and development of OCoPs? (b) What enablers and
disablers assist OCoP cultivation from establishment to sustainability? The study contributes to KM by
investigating OCoPs as a tool for knowledge sharing that fulfils two purposes: (a) expanding the focus
of research beyond traditional CoPs, to explore the intentional formation of OCoPs within large organi-
zations for a better understanding of associated challenges and opportunities, and (b) supplementing the
few relevant studies by investigating the contribution of organizational context to OCoP creation and
development. In order to attain these purposes, this research study presents a model, outlining the factors
that enable or disable OCoPs. Also, an overview of OilCo and PetchCo (case study acronyms) with their
critical methodological elements illustrate the study’s implications for managing knowledge from an
organizational perspective. The findings provide empirical evidence for a better understanding of the
phases that enable the implementation of OCoPs, from establishment to sustainability.
Organizational Communities of Practices and their Establishment
in Different Organizational Contexts
The term ‘OCoP’ appears in management literature and broadens the CoP concept (Kirkman et al.,
2011, 2013; Macpherson et al., 2019). Agrawal and Joshi (2011) found that OCoPs represent more
262 South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 10(3)
intentionally formed CoPs, more successful than CoPs, whose voluntary membership limits direct man-
agement support. The implication is that organizations willing to provide direct support initiate OCoPs’
success. Large firms with geographically dispersed activities prefer more formalized OCoP activities to
conventional CoPs (Gimenez et al., 2017).
An organization’s ability to understand its context ensures a comprehensive picture of its operating
environment. According to Bardon and Borzillo (2016), OCoPs ‘should evolve in an organizational
context in which members enjoy total freedom with network collaboration across their respective units’
(p. 17). A company can shape perceptions and behaviours through social interaction and enhancement,
due to shared language and visions (Lefebvre et al., 2016). Identifying its features (e.g., structure, culture,
policies, practices) activates phases that facilitate the stream of knowledge among individuals in the
organization (Gao et al., 2008). Therefore, a potentially dynamic relationship exists between organiza-
tional context and the success of OCoPs (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005). For example, Yamklin and Igel
(2012) used three case studies to investigate different OCoPs in Thailand’s manufacturing sector, estab-
lishing their contribution to realizing tangible organizational performance results. One significant finding
was that assigning definite activities to OCoPs produced tangible organizational advantages. Receiving
attention from senior management supports reviewing and implementing ideas and suggestions. A recent
study by Aljuwaiber (2020) corroborates this in an investigation of the role of knowledge sharing in busi-
ness development among members of sectoral committees. The study found that the level of support
from senior management affected the willingness to share knowledge and exchange personal expertise.
The study argues that during OCoP implementation, firms should offer an explicit strategy for KM
initiatives. This would lead to improving an organization’s OCoP activities, strengthening the associa-
tion with the firm’s business plan. The study expanded the perspective on the OCoP development within
organizations.
Limited studies concerning cultural variances in knowledge sharing in emerging economies, including
the Middle East, South America and Africa, are inadequate. Alsereihy et al. (2012) found that Saudi Arabia
has not yet widely accepted and implemented KM. A previous study (Idris, 2007) of five leading companies
in Saudi Arabia identifies a lack of managerial encouragement, leading to low awareness that limits involve-
ment in OCoP activities. The study assumed that the participants recognized the knowledge-sharing value
of OCoPs but failed to outline how managers encouraged employees’ use of OCoPs. Therefore, under-
standing the organizational context is vital in examining OCoPs from a non-Western context.
Methodology
Study Context
Case studies of two big companies support this investigation of OCoPs. A case study approach using
qualitative methods enables the researcher to examine each company’s OCoPs from a holistic perspective
(Yin, 2014). This research study adopted a case study approach that involved companies with intention-
ally created OCoPs—an oil company (OilCo) and a petrochemical company (PetchCo). Case selection
criteria emerged from instances of established OCoPs that illustrate opportunities and challenges in KM
implementations for big, geographically distributed firms (Gimenez et al., 2017). Each company is con-
textually bound, with various managers’ practical knowledge and behaviour. The difference between the
two cases is that each firm espouses distinct structures and strategies (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005). The
case studies enhance external validity that accompanies large-scale operations with numerous affiliates
and prominent OCoP representation. Moreover, these organizations’ OCoPs are at different stages of
development, providing insight into the development process.
Aljuwaiber 263
Case Study 1 (OilCo)
Case study 1 is a large oil company in which OCoPs have operated as an initiative, for approximately
15 years, to share best practices and lessons among employees. The company has clear guidelines that help
employees comprehend the goals, roles and responsibilities of setting up OCoPs. The primary incentives to
establish OCoPs within OilCo are to reduce repetitive work and fill gaps in competence and know-how.
Members of OCoPs can communicate virtually or face to face and exchange their experiences.
Case Study 2 (PetchCo)
Case study 2 is a petrochemical company. The OCoP terminology is not common among PetchCo par-
ticipants; ‘Expert Network’ is their alternative term for ‘OCoP’. PetchCo establishes Expert Networks
based on disciplines or professions within industrial sites, and members’ formal assignments reflect their
accumulated knowledge and expertise.
Data Collection
Methodologically, data collection from both case studies occurred concurrently. In-depth semi-
structured interviews collected insights about the role of knowledge sharing for purposeful OCoPs.
A total of 22 interviews were conducted to collect data from interviewee groups; OCoP members, man-
agers, leaders and non-members participated. Analysis of 91 documents (e.g., publicly available reports
and research, company’s annual reports) supported the interviews. Field notes collected during 12 h of
observations were added to the study data. A snowball sampling strategy resulted in many respondents
giving interview referrals; many became participants who suggested other potential respondents
(Robinson, 2013). Table 1 presents an overview of the data collected.
Data Analysis
The researcher used MAXQDA software to analyse qualitative data. Interview transcriptions were stored
in a secure computer to perform a thematic analysis to identify, analyse and report patterns (themes)
(Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). A structured coding scheme helped to group codes into categories and
subthemes. Themes that emerged from several iterations were perfumed using a constant comparison
between structure and raw data. The final iteration supported developing the study’s proposed frame-
work, considering the stages of OCoP development that the case studies represented. Themes were
organized into five categories: establishment, enforcement, recognition, maintenance and sustainability,
representing OCoP development phases.
Research Findings and Discussion
Case Studies and Their Organizational Communities of Practices’
Cultivation in Five-Phase Framework
Insights from data analysis on establishment, enforcement, recognition, maintenance and sustainability
of each firm’s OCoPs inspired the study’s five-phase framework. Each phase comprises overlapping
264 South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 10(3)
Table 1. A Summary of Data Collection in Both Companies
Data Source OilCo PetchCo
Semi-structured interviews
Senior managers 1 6
Middle managers 2 4
Senior technicians 3 2
KM specialists 1 1
Employees 2 0
Total 9 13
Observation (h)
Informal observation (7) 3 1
Workplace impression 1 2
Documents
Internal documents 3 5
Annual reports 6 4
Email correspondence 2 0
Company journals 4 9
Public sources 26 32
Source: The author.
Figure 1. The Five-phase Framework for Enabling and Disabling Components of OCoPs
Source: The author.
Aljuwaiber 265
enabling and disabling factors influencing OCoPs. Representative quotations, together with additional
examples from the data set, appear in Appendix A. Figure 1 presents the overall framework for the five
phases that enable or disable configuration of OCoPs within the organization.
Establishment Phase
The establishment phase is significant in seeding OCoPs within a company. Organizations may have
various aims for establishing OCoPs as tools for enhancing KM initiatives (Kirkman et al., 2013). That
requires setting clear rules and procedures and providing essential resources to assist OCoP leaders in
stimulating group activities. Many studies emphasize the importance of collaborative efforts in the estab-
lishment phase (Roberts, 2006), which senior management roles enhance and support. The best approach
is avoiding restrictions on senior management, using their role as a guideline for providing resources and
coordination to OCoP activities (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Moreover, resources should be available and accessible to all members, for easier interaction. Three
enablers and one disabler of OCoPs characterize the establishment phase; starting by creating KM forum
identity is important to grounding the initiative. Both OilCo and PetchCo have established KM units that
augment the exchange of best practices and lessons learnt.
During OCoP establishment, a KM-division department plays a crucial role since KM practices can
promote acknowledging the significance of supporting KM initiatives. As the study findings indicate,
employee type is critical when applying and supporting KM initiatives. Findings from other studies note
that OCoPs have materialized in reaction to bolstering social interactions and distributing knowledge
(Jørgensen et al., 2019; Pattinson et al., 2016).
ShareKnow and Expert Networks (OilCo’s and PetchCo’s respective OCoPs) seemed to follow KM
value. The majority of OilCo and PetchCo employees are technicians and engineers, with strong chances
of facing complex problems that require using experience to avoid further issues. Accordingly, the initial
steps in establishing OCoPs are acknowledging their importance, fostering knowledge sharing and
securing the support of managers and senior management (Macpherson et al., 2019). Supporting OCoPs
is a central pivot step in their establishment, while managers must believe in the value they add to the
organization, particularly at the initial stage.
Earlier research on links between OCoPs and strategy focused on alignment with the company’s
core business (i.e., satisfying the main business objectives), positively impacting the establishment and
appreciation of OCoP activities (Duryan & Smyth, 2019) and their great value for knowledge steadiness
and creation.
OilCo OCoPs appear closely linked with areas of work, where employees can elaborate OCoP and
company activities. This concurs with the viewpoint of Macpherson et al. (2019) that OCoP members are
experts, expected to develop innovative solutions and best practices. This implies the purposeful estab-
lishment of OCoPs around the company’s core business, where their activities contribute to achieving
company goals. In addition to good advocacy from senior management, this lets OCoPs to increase
awareness of knowledge sharing’s vital role and acquiring organizational acceptance.
Among issues that influence OCoP success, time pressure and work overload are inhibiting factors.
This finding is consistent with some evidence from past studies that state that time pressure is a signifi-
cant administrative factor influencing individual participation in OCoPs (Oliver & Kandadi, 2006).
Heavy daily routine and workload consumes a lot of time, which could be utilized by OCoP members
in knowledge sharing. Oliver and Kandadi (2006) agree, stating that to maintain participation levels,
employees should sacrifice 15%–20% of their working hours for OCoP activities that focus on establish-
ing new knowledge.
266 South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 10(3)
Enforcement Phase
Senior- and middle-management roles are essential to reinforcing company OCoPs, by bringing manag-
ers’ attention to OCoP activities and effectively applying them in deliberating a firm’s goals (Radaelli &
Sitton-Kent, 2016). Past research has not sufficiently addressed middle-management roles in ratifying
and cultivating OCoPs (Hislop, 2013). Ooi et al. (2012) emphasize that the senior management should
build confidence among the middle management through sharing company directions and strategies, an
approach that encourages frequent social interactions. Studies addressing middle management’s role in
supporting OCoPs are yet inadequate.
This study sees middle management’s role as crucial and argues that it should receive greater attention
in OCoP research. In both case studies here, middle management includes positions as a direct (or general)
manager, using titles interchangeably. The leadership approach is to inspire middle managers or OCoP
leaders to take on leadership roles in organizing and aiding OCoP activities. Lank et al. (2008) indicate that
always seeking acceptance from higher-level managers is necessary to legitimize devoting time to OCoPs;
therefore, support from both senior and middle management is important for OCoPs to thrive.
Concerning control, the study maintains that regulating OCoPs during the enforcement phase is
unnecessary. Extensive pressure and control on OCoP happenings may hinder quicker task performance
(Bardon & Borzillo, 2016). However, OCoP undertakings should parallel the firm’s intents and team
requirements in achieving goals. A top-down management style with a centralized decision-making
process can have a reflexive sway on the implementation of purposeful OCoPs.
Controlling occurs when OCoP activities reflect uncertainty about its role, expectations or member-
ship (Bardon & Borzillo, 2016). OCoPs should steer rather than control activities, by including members
in the decision-making process, reducing requirements for management control and encouraging
self-governance.
Employees from both case study companies consider management approval essential, highlighting
variances between Western and Eastern administrative styles. OilCo and PetchCo are based in Saudi
Arabia; the decision to establish both intentionally formed OCoPs and self-organized CoPs should first
gain management’s approval. OilCo offers an example—its procedure required many signatures and
approvals for OCoPs, a difficult process. Participants from PetchCo voiced a concern for having inde-
pendent powers during decision-making to develop OCoPs, but they were blocked. The management’s
approval crystallizes and apprises the forming and setting of OCoPs.
The two case studies highlight a prevailing divide between wanting to enhance joint action and
catalyse shared proficiency, and, on the other hand, the necessity for a relentless pursuit of senior
management’s approval. In both cases, this was largely accepted as a feature within Saudi Arabian
culture; it may not apply elsewhere. An initiative culture where one can express one’s thoughts can
improve interaction and facilitate OCoPs as an arena for sharing acquaintances and thoughts.
Recognition Phase
The recognition phase raises consciousness and visibility of such activities and involvement in a com-
pany’s OCoPs and clarifies group achievements for all members of an organization. The fundamental
drive is to present OCoP activities at annual gatherings of senior administrators. OCoP members can
share accounts of their accomplishments and ensure that the organization recognizes their involvement
(McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Company leaders’ demonstration of interest transforms employees’ and
managers’ attitudes.
PetchCo participants emphasized the necessity of senior managers manifesting their demonstrated
commitment to OCoP activities. Inviting executives and presenting outcomes purposefully in the meeting
Aljuwaiber 267
can alter senior management’s insights into OCoPs. To improve recognition, the company’s business
plan should articulate OCoP objectives (Macpherson et al., 2019). OilCo illustrates this as the OCoP
leader completes a charter form as a preliminary step when establishing an OCoP, identifying and con-
firming the relation of its activities to business intents. A recent study (Peñarroja et al., 2019) also
asserted that sharing knowledge with others and organizational recognition motivated employees.
Conversely, PetchCo officially assigns its OCoP members and ends by potentially controlling their
involvement. As Pattinson et al. (2016) affirm, managers endorse groups (e.g., OCoPs) whose tasks align
with the firm’s commercial goals. Such goals are necessary for encouraging isolated employees and
company’s departments to participate (Annabi et al., 2012). However, a company’s goals should not
constrict OCoP activities, which can lead to knowledge domain restriction and inhibit effective cultiva-
tion of OCoPs.
Central members of OCoPs in both OilCo and PetchCo had amassed knowledge and work experience
by devoting a portion of their daily activities to OCoPs. The OilCo case emphasizes the significance of
instituting a reward system that inspires involvement. In PetchCo, receiving the senior management’s
appreciation optimistically impacted individual commitment to OCoPs. The evidence showed that
valuing members for their contribution to OCoPs encouraged others to follow. Appreciation from senior
managers can encourage members to dedicate more time to OCoPs and relieve any negative attitude that
the manager might harbour.
Maintenance Phase
The maintenance phase includes transacting guidelines for long-term enhancement of the company’s
OCoP implementation. OCoPs prosper in slack and less compacted structure that Wenger (2010)
describes as a common feature of traditional CoPs. Providing facilities and sharing documents or tools
figure considerably in maintaining OCoP activities. The maintenance phase is fundamental to ensuring
that OCoPs deliver effective outcomes and contribute to the firm’s aims.
Study outcomes confirm that OCoPs should not have a limiting structure. More significantly, exchange
of information and proficiency within firms require a stimulating environment. OCoPs in OilCo and
PetchCo comprise scientists and specialists who view OCoPs as self-governing and conducive to inno-
vative thinking. OilCo experts considered OCoPs an aspect of their job rather than part of the company’s
structure, avoiding managerial hierarchies.
PetchCo employees were in the midst of resisting a plan for OCoPs to become more hierarchically
structured, which would have resulted in the need to seek approval for their activities. The current study
argues that OCoPs should not be subject to a company hierarchy; flexible formation encourages members
to communicate and interact freely in terms of innovative ideas. Previous studies agree that decreased
flexibility could result in passivity towards sharing ideas and expertise within a company (Duryan &
Smyth, 2019; Lee & Edmondson, 2017). To advance its development, PetchCo must ensure that
OCoPs are informally managed, with no rigid structure, to prevent employees from losing motivation for
knowledge sharing. PetchCo uses top-down decision-making, so OCoPs gain access to data from its
affiliates to help them understand the current issues and recommend suitable solutions.
Sustainability Phase
Sustainability, the final phase of the framework, guarantees continuity of OCoP activities with well-
defined aims and undeviating involvement in the firm. Concerns and real problems are most effective,
and sustainable OCoPs link to the firm’s objectives (Jørgensen et al., 2019). Cheung et al. (2013) argue
that knowledge self-efficacy and intention to continue knowledge sharing would achieve sustainability
of OCoPs.
268 South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 10(3)
Duryan and Smyth (2019) contend that switching in leaders from time to time would create
new knowledge and pragmatic insights into contemporary issues confronting business, making OCoPs
unsustainable. Such leaders’ experiences and interests of members do not associate with the changing
business environment. However, the sustainability level may indicate that OCoPs are well situated and
sophisticated during implementation, with a considerable degree of good results benefitting the firm
and employees. Therefore, OCoPs call for optimized interactions and enhancements with other entities,
that is, affiliates.
Research findings build on proposals in earlier studies (Walter et al., 2013), concerning rewards and
their influence on improving involvement in OCoP activities. Most interviewees differentiated between
direct and indirect rewards. OilCo participants found financial rewards and career growth important.
This underlines the necessity of designing an official reward system, to establish criteria for assessing
OCoPs members appropriately, limiting improvised judgements from immediate managers. This research
study contends that the initial definition of CoPs (Wenger et al., 2002) contradicts the reward system
because OCoP membership is not voluntary. Incentive systems should apply to OCoPs, so senior and
middle administration recognize them more fully.
The current study notes that cultivating a knowledge-sharing culture can prove a contributing factor
in a firm’s and employee’s success (Oyemomi et al., 2019). Thus, creating a knowledge-sharing culture
is essential to preserving OCoPs’ sustainability. This was particularly significant at OilCo, owing to its
role in the petroleum industry, which requires applying cutting-edge technology. Apparently, the firm has
established a knowledge-sharing culture among its affiliates in Saudi Arabia, while persuading employ-
ees to trade their thoughts and knowledge with affiliates globally. Consequently, this cooperative
environment can motivate people to share their professional knowledge and technical expertise, by
employing OCoPs.
PetchCo findings confirm several studies (Roberts, 2006) that show that those living within an Arab
culture (e.g., Saudi Arabia) feel more comfortable when participating in informal settings, that is, OCoPs.
This particularly occurs due to the absence of blame for lack of specific knowledge. The cases reveal that
some staff lack willingness to exchange knowledge with others in OCoPs due to barriers such as fear
sharing incorrect information, wishing to avoid exposure to a technicality, legal problems or language
barriers. Individuals are unlikely to perform effectively if they are not confident in exchanging knowl-
edge, particularly when knowledge sharing is not a mandatory requirement.
Actions of staff towards KM initiatives influence the broad culture of firms within the context of this
study. Thus, many discreet employees create a culture of conservatism within their organizations, attrib-
uting reluctance to share expertise to concern about missing an opportunity for a promotion. They also
fear that knowledge shared could subsequently reflect negatively on them. Flexible organizational
culture should be nurtured among employees, particularly at the senior- and middle-management levels.
Cultivating a knowledge-sharing culture is more conducive to embracing knowledge-sharing behaviour
in the company (Ooi et al., 2012).
Conclusion and Implications
This research study contributes to the KM literature and OCoPs by increasing comprehension of how an
organizational context enables OCoPs. The study uses two case studies of OCoPs at different stages of
implementation. Interviews and observations enabled examination of the intentional establishment of
OCoPs within the companies, together with enabling or disabling factors of their activities. The study
has extended prior research by proposing a framework for demonstrating how organizational contexts
enable OCoP activities and enhance knowledge sharing within OCoPs.
Aljuwaiber 269
The study findings suggest five interdependent phases, enabling or disabling development of OCoP in
the organizational context, that is, (a) establishment; (b) enforcement; (c) recognition; (d) maintenance;
and (e) sustainability. The proposed framework arose from observing the phases that OilCo and PetchCo
employed in recognizing components, enhancing development of OCoPs and communication in KM at
every phase. The proposed framework has only been implemented in businesses in Saudi Arabia, result-
ing in a need to establish its relevance to various organizational sectors and environments.
In general, the study’s findings achieved research objectives and enhanced development of the objec-
tive, regarding theoretical and practical implications. First, this article extends the understanding of the
nature of OCoPs; the concept previously discussed several studies focusing on KM (e.g., Kirkman et al.,
2011, 2013; Macpherson et al., 2019; Nithithanatchinnapat et al., 2016), but without discussing how an
organizational context impacts the development of OCoPs. Thus, this research provides a comprehen-
sive picture of the specific phases that implementing OCoPs requires, from their initial establishment to
ensuring their efficiency and sustainability. The findings are significant, extending our comprehension
of the factors enabling and disabling OCoPs within organizations. The research study establishes the
proposed integrative framework to assist managers in developing a comprehensive approach to founding
OCoPs. Also, the framework’s phases should not operate separately, but, rather, it should be combined
to enable OCoPs to realize maximum advantage and sustainability within the organization, particularly
during their establishment phase.
Second, the research study provides empirical evidence that adequate support from senior executives
can strengthen KM initiatives, reflecting its success in different organizational forms, including OCoPs.
Previous research demonstrates the importance of associating OCoP activities with business goals
(Annabi et al., 2012; Macpherson et al., 2019). The current research study contends that OCoPs that
achieve goals call for establishing and maintaining them in line with the firm’s business strategy, that is,
at the start of each year. Specifically, the study results suggest the desirability of achieving a closer rela-
tionship between OCoP and KM plans, coordinating group activities to achieve the firm’s goals.
Finally, based on this study’s findings, OCoPs should be embedded in business processes, where both
the firm and the employees realize mutual benefits, and the employees can see their contribution valued
and recognized. This current study also finds that the configuration of OCoP activities in business pro-
cesses can both sustain and endorse their objectives from the perspective of the business. This finding is
not only consistent with Lefebvre et al. (2016), who indicate that aligning organizational knowledge
initiatives with KM goals will help to create the context for social interactions. It also shows that this
alignment offers the flexibility to form OCoPs, imparting a degree of authority, that is, establishing new
OCoPs without having to seek the approval of senior or middle management.
This study has some limitations. First, it is based on two case studies, involving organizations located
in Saudi Arabia, which encourage further studies to provide a more holistic picture of opportunities and
challenges that OCoPs face in various regions. Second, the proposed framework is conceptual and
requires validation. Future research might examine the validity level of the conceptual model and assure
the stability of its enabling and disabling factors for new research on OCoPs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author received no nancial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
270 South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 10(3)
ORCID iD
Abobakr Aljuwaiber https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-5317
Appendix A. Examples of Data Set
1. Establishment Phase
Role of KM Section to Facilitate KM Initiatives (e.g., OCoPs)
PetchCo.
In the company the terminology KM is used almost—I don’t want to be neutral—exclusively in T&I. We are the
department that has a dedicated team called ‘Knowledge Management’. You will not nd this in the factory, they
may call it with different name, for example in the factory they call it the Manufacturing Centre of Excellence.
People are excellent at sharing the expertise but not calling it formally ‘Knowledge Management’.
Broad Accepting of OCoPs
OilCo
The top management should have faith in the policies they propose. There is a difference between saying ‘we
have it, we will write it down, we will put it in the policy’, and saying ‘you have it written in the policy and you
are applying it, and you are leading in the organization by example’.
PetchCo.
We have, as technicians, agreed to unite into one group, that is, the Expert Group, where everyone can help each
other to resolve [issues] and give insights about a certain problem, drawing from experience. This will save time
and money for the company.
Workload and Time Pressure can Disable Establishment of OCoPs
PetchCo.
I do not think we have a problem with top management, it is with the afliates—it is a challenge from the manage-
ment under whom a member works. For example, if we want to arrange a business trip and workshops and so
on. I have received promises from the management [in an afliate] about the person involved, who is a member
of the group, but their management is different to mine. We do make excuses for them, because they are really
overloaded, but this is one of the main obstacles.
2. Enforcement Phase
The Essential Role of the Middle Management for Boosting OCoPs
PetchCo.
In the process of networking, we sometimes receive a request from another company [i.e. an afliate] to give
them some advice, if we have experience of the issue. But we have priorities, [and it is difcult] to give them our
time and effort, as my management is my direct duty, and at the end of the year I will [be] evaluated according
to that. So why should I give time and effort to others?
Guiding OCoPs’ Works
PetchCo.
Control can come from both sides. Set-up mechanisms can be controlled by networks personnel, but the company
has to control the results. These results should be organized by the company, but the procedures and decisions
about how to interact, or how to share, should not be formalized.
Aljuwaiber 271
Constantly Obtaining Management Approval Can Disable Enforcing OCoPs
OilCo
It is organizing. There are requirements you need to follow if you wish to establish [O]CoPs. You should be clear.
You should have a certain experience and a minimum number of members. Moreover, you should obtain manage-
ment approval. The matter requires justication, no subject can be used for communities of practice. You must
satisfy minimum requirements.
PetchCo.
Endorsement of activities by management is important, because every year we have to set goals, we call them
short term, where we set objectives for the whole group. The Expert Group will have the same objectives, so we
need to get endorsement or approval from management for these activities.
3. Recognition Phase
Ubiquitous Impact of OCoPs’ Works
OilCo
This is the major aspect—‘showing value’ to encourage people to participate. Because some [O]CoPs are vague
and do not have clear work [to present], it is necessary to show value, and to be very specic and have a purpose.
PetchCo
This kind of appreciation means so much to the engineers—having a visit from the Vice President, who will
acknowledge their hard work, and after three or four months, the Executive Vice President might pay us another
visit. This way, I can change the culture of the people. So when their direct managers hear that they are appre-
ciated by the Vice President, they will start to pay more attention to them. That is why I do not go to the direct
managers, or even the General Manager, because you are wasting time with them, and [they] do not really pay
attention to what I want; but when the order comes from the top they comply with it, and will take good care of
those who work with them, as they know that the top management cares about them.
Binding OCoPs’ Objectives with the Company’s Business Plan
OilCo
One of the communities of practice we tried to form was not accepted and I was requested to resubmit an appli-
cation, in addition to following other procedures. So, you take your time working on paper and saying whether
we need this or not. Not every subject can be covered by an [O]CoP. So, you should be clear and satisfy require-
ments in order to establish [O]CoPs.
PetchCo
Whatever you are doing needs to be linked to business objectives, linked to the business plan... Things need to
ow from 2020, ve strategies into the ve-year plan, down to the one-year plan. They need to be working on
business related issues, on the manufacturing business plan; they need to have key deliverables. It is not just
a group of people getting together. They are getting together because they have collective knowledge that they
want to optimize.
Provision of Appreciation and Gratitude for OCoP’ Members
OilCo
If we are a strong [organizational] community of practice, then this will be reected in the annual member review
at the end of the year, and consequently the company will recognize it.
272 South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 10(3)
PetchCo
When you have a team and you recognize one of the team for doing something you are actually motivating the
other members to do the same, so it is very important to recognize the achiever, the best achiever. The other thing
is that when you recognize people’s work and effort, this helps retain staff. If you do not recognize them… you
know most people like recognition, like to be visible and for their work to be announced as in newsletters, for
example.
The Influence of Diversity of OCoPs’ Concept
OilCo
This is the rst time I have heard of this term. This idea is not familiar to me because I am busy with work.
When we started employment here, our duties were dened. For example, you have 100 oil wells, so my duties
are conned to them. In my view, our management has a big role [to play] in improving this aspect. About
three years ago, the company, started to afrm very strongly that knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer
are crucial.
PetchCo
[M]aybe the terminology is not clear… Here they call them ‘Networks’; they do not call them [O]CoPs. If you
say to them ‘Domain’, they will know about it. However, there is mixing between Domains because they were
established recently, about three years ago, and it is not on the radar of top management in any effective way.
4. Maintenance Phase
OCoPs Are Better Set Outside the Organizational Structure
OilCo
Communities of practice should be exible and not in a division called ‘Communities of practice’, or Unit of
[O]CoPs. Further, it is not appropriate to bring some subject matter expert and appoint him as communities of
practice specialist. However, it is part of his task to support [O]CoPs.
PetchCo
Creating the organization, [and] establishing any change within the organization would make some things
abnormal, because [organizational] communities of practice are very dynamic [and] complex, and this,
combined with the characteristics [of OCoPs] as big and small and so on, would make it difcult to manage such
organizations. Sometimes, communities of practices merge. So if you get a merged organization within a com-
pany, the whole project will be affected. This is why the company decided to keep the communities of practices
as virtual [O]CoPs.
Inflexible Management in the Global Company Can Affect Expanding Employees’ Awareness of
Knowledge-Sharing Activities
OilCo
The company has to consider issues like points of experience and points of knowledge that the company is
gathering in those communities. There were attempts to compare communities of practice and organizations
but the decision, [was] that, for the benet of the company, the company is to connect [with] organizations that
are not being controlled by administrative organizations of the company using control by technical policies and
procedures.
Aljuwaiber 273
5. Sustainability Phase
Formalizing Systems for Reward
OilCo
You can add your participation in [O]CoPs to your achievements. So any technical person who has participated
in [O]CoPs’ activities and delivered (for example) a presentation or documents can add this to their CV. It is not
only a nancial reward but also a benet to your CV. I would prefer to have a reward system, because [otherwise]
some people do not give it such importance or value.
PetchCo
You can put a reward system in place, some drivers encourage people to participate. The main goal is to nd
people who are willing to work on these activities even without an allowance, but if there were some reward in
return, that would be an assisting factor.
Cultivating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture
OilCo
Knowledge sharing is encouraged within the company. So, through this tool you can suggest any ideas and
transfer them to your direct supervisor, who will pass them along to the Engineering Management Services, and
if the idea is implemented and is successful at the worksite and it possible to use it elsewhere it can be circulated
to other departments in the company.
Individual Behavior Can Affect Participation in OCoPs
OilCo
I think local culture is winning now. It means that if you are from my tribe, I will share my knowledge with you.
If you are not, I will not share it with you. If you are a technician, I will do so. Bear in mind that clan culture exists
in the company. All the sectarian problems from local culture inuence organizational culture.
References
Agrawal, A., & Joshi, K. D. (2011, January). A review of community of practice in organizations: Key ndings and
emerging themes. Paper presented at the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.
org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.26
Aljuwaiber, A. (2016). Communities of practice as an initiative for knowledge sharing in business organizations:
A literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 731–748.
Aljuwaiber, A. (2020). Business development through knowledge sharing among members of sectoral committees.
Business Process Management Journal, 26(6), 1349–1377.
Alsereihy, H. A., Alyoubi, B. A. & El Emary, I. M. (2012). Effectiveness of knowledge management strategies on
business organizations in KSA: Critical reviewing study. Middle-East Journal of Scientic Research, 12(2),
223–233.
Annabi, H., McGann, S. T., Pels S., Arnold, P., & Rivinus, C. (2012, January). Guidelines to align communities of
practice with business objectives: An application of social media. Paper presented at the 45th Hawaii interna-
tional conference on system sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.297
Bardon, T., & Borzillo, S. (2016), Communities of practice: Control or autonomy? Journal of Business Strategy,
37(1), 11–18.
Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2014). The place of communities of practice in knowledge management studies: A critical
review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2), 366–381.
274 South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 10(3)
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101.
Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Lee, Z. W. (2013). Understanding the continuance intention of knowledge sharing in
online communities of practice through the post-knowledge-sharing evaluation processes. Journal of the Ameri-
can Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1357–1374.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership styles and organizational context. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 20(2), 105–123.
Duryan, M., & Smyth, H. (2019). Cultivating sustainable communities of practice within hierarchical bureaucracies:
The crucial role of an executive sponsorship. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(2),
400–422.
Gao, F., Li, M. & Clarke, S. (2008). Knowledge, management, and knowledge management in business operations.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 3–17.
Gimenez, R., Hernantes, J., Labaka, L., Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2017). Improving the resilience of disaster
management organizations through virtual communities of practice: A Delphi study. Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management, 25(3), 160–170.
Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Idris, A. M. (2007). Cultural barriers to improved organizational performance in Saudi Arabia. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 72(2), 36–53.
Jørgensen, R., Scarso, E., Kirchner, K., & Edwards, K. (2019). Exploring the maturity and development of global
communities of practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 26(4), 321–331.
Kirkman, B. L., Mathieu, J. E., Cordery, J. L., Rosen, B. & Kukenberger, M. (2011). Managing a new collaborative
entity in business organizations: Understanding organizational communities of practice effectiveness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1234–1245.
Kirkman, B. L., Cordery, J. L., Mathieu, J., Rosen, B. & Kukenberger, M. (2013). Global organizational communi-
ties of practice: The effects of nationality diversity, psychological safety, and media richness on community
performance. Human Relations, 66(3), 333–362.
Lank, E., Randell-Khan, J., Rosenbaum, S. & Tate, O. (2008). Herding cats: Choosing a governance structure for
your communities of practice. Journal of Change Management, 8(2), 101–109.
Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical
organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 35–58.
Lefebvre, V. M., Sorenson, D., Henchion, M., & Gellynck, X. (2016). Social capital and knowledge sharing
performance of learning networks. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 570–579.
Macpherson, A., Kiersch, C., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2019). Can senior management sustain engagement and
identication to support learning? Designing communities and dening goals. Journal of Strategy and Manage-
ment, 13(1), 144–159.
McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(1), 76–85.
Nithithanatchinnapat, B., Taylor, J., Joshi, K. D., & Weiss, M. L. (2016). Organizational communities of prac-
tice: Review, analysis, and role of information and communications technologies. Journal of Organizational
Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(4), 307–322.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating rm: Subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 419–436.
Oliver, S., & Kandadi, K. R. (2006). How to develop knowledge culture in organizations? A multiple case study of
large distributed organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 6–24.
Oyemomi, O., Liu, S., Neaga, I., Chen, H., & Nakpodia, F. (2019). How cultural impact on knowledge sharing con-
tributes to organizational performance: Using the fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 94, 313–319.
Ooi, K. B., Cheah, W. C., Lin, B., & Teh, P. L. (2012). TQM practices and knowledge sharing: An empirical study
of Malaysia’s manufacturing organizations. Asia Pacic Journal of Management, 29(1), 59–78.
Pattinson, S., Preece, D., & Dawson, P. (2016). In search of innovative capabilities of communities of practice:
A systematic review and typology for future research. Management Learning, 47(5), 506–524.
Aljuwaiber 275
Peñarroja, V., Sánchez, J., Gamero, N., Orengo, V., & Zornoza, A. M. (2019). The inuence of organisational facili-
tating conditions and technology acceptance factors on the effectiveness of virtual communities of practice.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 38(8), 845–857.
Radaelli, G., & Sitton-Kent, L. (2016). Middle managers and the translation of new ideas in organizations: A review
of micro-practices and contingencies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 311–332.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623–639.
Robinson, O. C. (2013). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41.
Schwarz, J. S., & Legner, C. (2020). Business model tools at the boundary: Exploring communities of practice and
knowledge boundaries in business model innovation. Electronic Markets, 30, 421–445.
Walter, C., Ribiere, V., & Galipeau, D. (2013). Evaluating the effect of rewards on the level of participation in com-
munities of practice at UNDP. BU Academic Review, 12(1), 1–20.
Wang, J., Zhang, R., Hao, J. X., & Chen, X. (2019). Motivation factors of knowledge collaboration in virtual com-
munities of practice: A perspective from system dynamics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(3), 466–488.
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore
(Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179–198.). Springer.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business
Review, 78(1), 139–146.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing
knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.
Yamklin, S., & Igel, B. (2012). Communities of practice purposefully designed for improving business performance.
Knowledge and Process Management, 19(4), 189–202.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
