The methodological challenges related to assess the outcomes of knowledge management initiatives: The case of communities of practice

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mbassegue, P., & Gardoni, M. (2018). The methodological challenges related to assess the outcomes of knowledge management initiatives: The case of communities of practice. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (Vol. 540, pp. 579–589). Springer New York LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01614-2_53

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free