Contrary to the "one‑fits‑all" approach used in the literature on how to sustain virtual communities of practice (VCoPs), this paper advocates that successful management practices should be contingent upon their basic characteristics. More specifically, this study of eight virtual communities of practice investigates how the actions taken by the communities' leadership teams may influence their success. The results show that decisions regarding the operational leadership of a VCoP are crucial elements to counteract the challenges arising from its structuring characteristics. Among those decisions, the choice and availability of a leader and the support of a coach are shown to be crucial.

The shared use of specialist terminology amongst the members of a community of practice is explored as evidence for the existence of the concept of terminology is described — this method uses both univariate analysis, specifically frequency distribution of single and compound words, and multivariate statistical analysis, particularly factor analysis. The results show that terminology sharing may act as a metric for knowledge sharing and knowledge diffusion among different (sub‑) communities. The case study chosen to demonstrate the efficacy of the terminology‑sharing method is drawn from breast cancer care, where texts produced for and by the three main components of the community are examined — namely the experts, the professionals and the patients. The shared use of specialist terminology amongst the members of a community of practice is explored as evidence for the existence of the concept of communal lexicon. A computer‑based method of investigating the extent of terminology is described — this method uses both univariate analysis, specifically frequency distribution of single and compound words, and multivariate statistical analysis, particularly factor analysis. The results show that terminology sharing may act as a metric for knowledge sharing and knowledge diffusion among different (sub‑) communities. The case study chosen to demonstrate the efficacy of the terminology‑sharing method is drawn from cancer care — especially breast cancer care, where texts produced for and by the three main components of the community are examined — namely the experts, the professionals and the patients.

This paper is an attempt to answer the question "How to design for engagement in community‑oriented knowledge management?" In order to do this we need an approach that has its primary focus on distinguishing, balancing, connecting and negotiating between knowledge in its two fundamental dimensions: individual and social. The concept of "knowledge cooperation" that we have defined as the participative cultivation of knowledge in a voluntary, informal social group", is our proposal for fulfilling the previously mentioned requirements. After introducing this definition of "knowledge cooperation" with its background in community‑oriented knowledge management, we will explain and give reasons for its constitutive elements and their unique combination in our approach. On this basis we will then describe the two coupled learning loops (participation and cultivation) which in our conception characterise the dynamics of knowledge cooperation and argue for the importance of looking at participation and cultivation as an interacting duality. Our main message is that the duality of participation and cultivation that constitutes our model of knowledge cooperation allows us both a better understanding of knowledge processes in an online community and to design active, dynamic, healthy communities where cultivating knowledge and participation in cultivating that knowledge mutually activates and sustains each other.

Interdisciplinary project teams foster the creation of new ideas and innovations to meet customer needs and to challenge competition under the pre‑condition that the team and knowledge transfer processes are running smoothly and efficiently. In practice knowledge created in projects often is lost when the team splits up and the members return to their tasks in the organisation. This leads to inefficiency as time and money is spent in inventing things, which are already known inside the organisation. The case study outlines how knowledge and potentials for improvement can be explored and synergies can be realised. 0ur approach offers guidelines to accumulate transfer and utilize knowledge acquired in projects to improve future business. Through a knowledge‑oriented concept the consulting and software implementation process of the case study's company is optimised. This offers the possibility to integrate organisational change management know‑how and furthermore it gives the opportunity for a critical reflection of finished and ongoing projects. In this process "best practices" and "lessons learned" are explored to foster a better planning and realisation of projects on the long run.

This article describes a knowledge management (KM) approach conceived from countermeasures targeted at addressing failure factors suggested in the literature. In order to counteract failure factors, the approach combines the technology of knowledge‑based KM systems, with the flexibility and understanding of knowledge facilitators, and the processes of the target community. In the KM system, the approach uses knowledge engineering concepts to represent knowledge artifacts and to enforce managerial responsibilities. By imposing a strict representation format, the approach guides and helps users. It does so by determining what knowledge to contribute, by enabling knowledge collection, and by representing knowledge. The purpose of knowledge facilitators is to complement the limitations of the computer‑ based component by verifying the quality of submitted artifacts and by motivating members to adopt the system. The design and operation of this approach is guided by identifying the processes of the target community and the level of specificity where they are useful. The importance of this contribution is that it offers guidelines to design a KM approach that relies on conclusions from published literature. In addition, it also proposes a means to validate knowledge sharing. A conclusion of this work is that it may be easier to address failure factors of KM approaches when all members of the target community have the same technical goals, are motivated by a common interest, are organized on a flat hierarchy, and are receptive to innovation. In addition, the use of a representation of the community's processes helps standardize capture, guide contributors, and associate existing with new artifacts. This association of artifacts can be used to validate knowledge sharing.

From recent research it emerges that addressing questions such as: How can an organisation harness collective intelligence to improve business performance? knowledge based systems? Organizations are aware that knowledge is essential for their survival in dynamic markets, and that intellectual capital is a valuable asset. But what most organizations´ leaderships are not clear on is how to create and manage this intangible asset. It is known that investment in training is essential, but it is often unclear how this investment may be converted into improved performance? It is well established that effective knowledge management requires a culture of sharing ideas, but how do organizations foster this type of exchange? Davenport & Prusak (1998) pointed out that if as the aphorism says, Knowledge is power, why should anyone want to share it? This paper proposes the Socratic Dialogue (Remenyi, 2007) as one of the tools organizations can use to facilitate organizational knowledge building and exchange. The Socratic Dialogue may also be used to promote communities of practice. It facilitates the construction of knowledge through discourse based on personal experience and this can create a culture of knowledge sharing. It also promotes people being critical of prevailing ideas. The paper explores the Socratic Dialogue and its process; it illustrates its application through the analysis of two cases; and finally articulates some reflections on how to make it work effectively.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the implementation of intellectual capital process to manage the traditional knowledge of the community. This qualitative research was conducted through an exploratory method in co‑operation with the Mea‑hiya Community Cultural Council, Chiang Mai, Thailand. A four step‑ approach IC process was recommended; this was aimed at the successful acquisition of the proposed model. The research demonstrates the intellectual capital process model's usefulness. Not only does the model encourage the community to formulate strategies from the stakeholders, but it also puts the strategy in practice because it is grounded in the stakeholders' needs and expectations. The process is more quantifiable by having key success factors' indicators measuring the traditional knowledge capital. The discussion leads to the formulation of a defensive protection system. The outcome of the community's traditional knowledge leans toward a local community‑based organizational paradigm. Consequently, the Mea‑hiya community pointed out the strategy to conserve and protect traditional knowledge by creating a defensive protection system which is incompliance to the WIPO & UNESCO framework (conserve, transmit, and protect of traditional knowledge). This paper allows practitioners to reflect on a case for implementing an IC process to manage cultural traditional knowledge.

Building knowledge management (KM) infrastructure involves reuse and refocus of several existing infrastructure components, and awareness around future visions and conditions of infrastructure. We present a community perspective using a staircase metaphor for conceptualizing government supported KM infrastructure and services. Additionally we illustrate a model for government's role in providing and leveraging infrastructure components from all tiers of government. With examples, we build a case for adding diffusion of innovation characteristics, and features from innovation networks analysis in KM infrastructure. Observability and trialability are important to knowledge acquisition, while compatibility are central to knowledge application, packaging, and creation. Ease of use, and perceived usefulness affects knowledge use in all its forms.