from communities to networks of practice through intranet use

10.1177/0893318904265125MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY /AUGUST 2004Vaast / INTRANET CONNECTIONS

O BROTHER,WHERE ARE THOU?

From Communities to Networks ofPractice Through Intranet Use

EMMANUELLE VAASTLong Island University

5

“The use of the

intranet somewhat

dislocates the

situated

dimension of

work. In this way,

it favors the

emergence of links

among

communities of

practice and the

overall network of

practice.”

http://mcq.sagepub.com/

Communities of practice are highly situated and, yet, networks of practice sup-posedly connect them. Assuming the situated dimension of work and identity incommunities of practice, how may dispersed agents be connected, and how maythe features of communities of practice be extended from the local to the networklevel? This article proposes that the use of intranets contributes to the intercon-nections of local communities and to the emergence of a network of practice. Itdraws on two case studies in which members of local communities used anintranet system to establish communications with remote colleagues in ways thatdid not merely reproduce their immediate context. The use of the intranet contrib-uted to the mutual reinforcement of local communities, and of the overall net-work, and to growing complementarities among colleagues at different levels.Conceptually, in a relational perspective, the use of the intranet extended thesituatedness of practice.

Keywords: communities of practice; networks of practice; situation; emer-gence; intranet

C ommunities of practice (CoPs) are situated; they emergefrom recurrent face-to-face interactions taking place in

materially and historically bounded contexts (Lave, 1988; Lave &Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). This local dimension of CoPsensures the sharing of meaning and a partially tacit mutual sense ofmembership (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000;Sole & Huysman, 2002). Members of CoPs engage in close workpractices, and they experience similar identification processes withtheir occupational local group. Yet the literature on CoPs alsoclaims that local CoPs get connected to each other and may formnetworks of practice (NoPs) that transcend geographical distance(Brown & Duguid, 2001; Pan & Leidner, 2003; Wenger,McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Such networks cannot benefit fromthe shared material and social context that is typical of CoPs. Theirmembers do not interact directly and do not share practices per se,and yet they are connected to each other. The emergence and fea-tures of NoPs thus still need to be better understood. This articleinvestigates the emergence of NoPs with the use of information andcommunication technologies (ICTs), and, especially, of intranetsystems. The use of new technologies does not merely reproducethe local material and social context of communities. Instead, asagents use and appropriate ICTs, they contribute to the reproduc-tion or the transformation of the structural properties of the socialsystems they are engaged in (Orlikowski, 2000, 2002; Poole &DeSanctis, 1994). Agents have more and more recourse to newtechnologies to establish communications with remote peers (Hiltz

6 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2004

by Giorgio Bertini on October 13, 2010mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


& Turoff, 1993; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Agents may thus useICTs to exchange with colleagues beyond geographical or tempo-ral distances. They may become aware that they share aims, prac-tices, and competencies with these remote colleagues. The use ofnew technologies, especially of network systems such as intranets,may then contribute to the appearance of a sense of common pro-fessional membership not only at the local communitarian level,but also at the network level. Identification with the NoPs may nei-ther be as strong nor as socially and materially supported as belong-ing to local CoPs, but it may allow distant colleagues to exchangeand mutually cultivate their practices. The use of ICTs may thusredefine the situatedness of CoPs and extend what is consideredlocal from the community level to the network level.

Relying on a literature review of CoPs, NoPs, and their potentiallinks thanks to ICTs as well as on two case studies, this articleattempts to provide elements of answers to the following question:Assuming that work, knowledge, and the learning of local CoPs aresituated, how may the use of intranets connect dispersed agents andextend the features of CoPs from the local to the network level?

The next section of the article provides the conceptual frame-work adopted in this research. The methodology section justifiesand presents the research design that compared the transformationsobserved in two empirical settings. The cases are then describedand, subsequently, analyzed to identify whether and how the use ofintranet systems helped to connect members of distant CoPs andfavored the emergence of NoPs.

COPS AND NOPS: INTRANET USE AS A LINK?

CoPs are highly situated work groups that arise from the sharingof material, social, and historical contexts (Brown & Duguid, 1991;Lave & Wenger, 1991; Orr, 1990). NoPs, whose members do notshare the same immediate environment and cannot easily interact,supposedly connect local CoPs. Given the situated dimension ofCoPs, how may such connections appear? Moreover, members ofNoPs do not experience the same material and social context: Whatcan they share at the network level? This first section describes the

Vaast / INTRANET CONNECTIONS 7



main features of contextualized CoPs and of decontextualizedNoPs. It then proposes that the use of new technologies, especiallyof intranet systems, is likely to foster connections among membersof local communities.

COPS ARE SITUATED WORK GROUPS

CoPs Rely on Direct, Frequent Interactions andShared Material Context

CoPs rely on a situated context (Lave, 1988; Suchman, 1987).Their members experience close practices, frequently interact, andshare knowledge and close concerns (Gherardi, 2001; Gherardi &Nicolini, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). They worktogether and engage in activities that are for some similar and forothers complementary. They also have the occasion to discussdirectly their activities and unusual concerns (Orr, 1990). Theserepeated, direct interactions account for the socialization processesthat make newcomers in the community become legitimate partici-pants (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Old-timers acquaint newcomerswith the rules and rituals that distinguish the community. Thesesocialization processes are partly implicit as well, and they entailmimetic and shared habits. Furthermore, the situation of CoPsfavors learning by doing and the strategic creation of knowledge(Argyris & Schon, 1978; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Heaton &Taylor, 2002).

CoPs, therefore, unfold from their situation, which creates acontext favorable to direct interactions, mutual assistance in prac-tice, and the sharing of collective goals (Iverson & McPhee, 2002).The situation of CoPs illuminates their three defining features andtwo related foundations.

The Three Defining Features and Two Foundations of CoPs

According to Wenger (1998), CoPs display three distinguishingattributes and rest on two related foundations.

Mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire con-stitute the three specific features of CoPs:




• Mutual engagement: People join the CoP by committing themselvesto actions whose meaning is mutually negotiated. Members of a CoPare complementary and linked through their mutual engagement insocial practices. For instance, in Wenger’s book (1998), claim pro-cessors all operate on the same floor and are engaged in close tasks.Their activities are very similar even though they are not jointlyachieved.

• Joint enterprise: Socialization processes and operations in the com-munity aim at achieving a joint enterprise. The latter results from theconstant process of negotiation that reflects the dynamics of mutualengagement. The copier repairers studied by Orr (1990), for exam-ple, fix machines at Xerox clients’ plants, but they frequently meetto discuss failures and their solutions. Repeated interactions givethem a sense of their professional duties and occupational goals.

• Shared repertoire: The shared repertoire has gradually been consti-tuted and regenerated through engagement in practices and main-tains the social construction of meaning. It may be material and con-crete (e.g., files and forms) or more intangible (e.g., routines,symbols, and specific idioms). Claim processors, for instance, relymostly on reified procedures and on information systems (Wenger,1998), whereas repairers’ technical craft depends on socially dis-tributed knowledge that is stored and enriched through informalconversations (Orr, 1990).

These three features of communities indicate an interplaybetween what members of CoPs actually do and whom they con-sider themselves to be. Indeed, practice and identity jointly foundCoPs. First, practice unifies and gives coherence and significanceto CoPs (Gherardi, 2000, 2001). Tenants of the practice perspectiverefer to sociological works devoted to the notion (cf., in particular,Bourdieu, 1990, 1994, 2000; De Certeau, 1980; Giddens, 1984)and propose an integrative and critical approach (Contu &Willmott, 2000, 2003). They define practices as temporally, mate-rially, and socially situated actions (Cook & Brown, 1999, p. 386).This situated context gives meaning to what members of the com-munity actually do (Orlikowski, 2002, p. 256).

The second foundation of CoPs relates to this shared meaningand interpretive consistence of the community. Members of CoPsshare a common work identity (Wenger, 2000; Wenger et al.,2002). Identification processes (which arise from direct, repeated




encounters and implicit learning on the job) ensure that members ofthe community feel part of a group, which gives meaning to theirjob. The identity of the community relies on both the internal image(what members of the group consider themselves to be) and theexternal image (how they think other people, who do not belong tothe community, perceive the community) of the group (Dutton,Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). These identification processes arealso usually positively connoted as CoPs provide their memberswith professional competencies and knowledge. The communitysustains itself partly because its members value their participationin a group that provides them with a prized professional identity.

THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN COPS AND NOPS

The Notion of NoPs

CoPs are thus highly situated work groups. The colocation oftheir members and the sharing of material contexts make it possiblefor mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoires toemerge (Sole & Huysman, 2002). Also, members of the commu-nity share practices and identities as they work together and repeat-edly interact. Yet the literature proposed that local CoPs get con-nected into constellations of CoPs (Brown & Duguid, 1991;Wenger, 1998), constellations of practices (Gherardi & Nicolini,2002), or NoPs (Brown & Duguid, 2001). The literature has not yetbeen unified, and the three preceding terms have so far been used insomewhat distinct but not always clearly differentiated ways. Con-stellations of CoPs supposedly deal with organizations as a whole(Brown & Duguid, 1991), constellations of practice concern inter-dependent professions (Gherardi & Nicolini, 2002), whereas NoPsencompass local communities bound by the sharing of practices(Brown & Duguid, 2001). This article concentrates on the notion ofNoPs as an extension of remote CoPs that may get connected astheir respective members share the same kinds of work activities.

NoPs may arise from local CoPs that are geographically separatebut that are characterized by close practices and identification pro-cesses. Aggregates of local CoPs may result in wider and morebroadly based NoPs (Brown & Duguid, 2000, 2001). In such net-




works, learning may flow, “leak” in Brown and Duguid’s (2001)terms, regardless of formal boundaries or of geographical distance.

How to Connect NoPs and CoPs?

The specific ways in which local CoPs may get connected andpave the way for the emergence of NoPs have not, however, beenmuch investigated so far. How NoPs appear from specific, separateCoPs remains largely unexplored. This gap in the literature is allbut surprising as it points to an intriguing conceptual puzzle: Giventhat CoPs rely heavily on the sharing of material contexts and onsituated, recurrent, direct interactions, how may such idiosyncraticCoPs get connected into NoPs? The sharing of locally meaningfulpractices should not be considered an automatic process. The veryidea of a NoP that would not be supported by a shared context couldeven be considered a contradiction in itself, as practice is highly sit-uated. From a practice perspective, only members who share thesame local context, face the same kinds of concerns, and directlyinteract may actually share practices. Two questions, therefore,immediately arise when one considers the notion of NoPs. First,what would be the characteristics of these so-called dislocalizedNoPs? Second, how may NoPs emerge from the actions of mem-bers of local CoPs?

Concerning the first question, the three defining features andtwo foundations of CoPs cannot merely be transposed from thecommunity to the network. First, mutual engagement requires thatpeople get involved in interdependent activities whose meaningemerges from direct interactions. Second, the joint enterpriserequires that members share common goals or act collectively.Third, members of CoPs constitute shared repertoires over time asthey get to know their job and each other better. Virtual teams—teams whose members remain geographically dispersed but jointlyaccomplish a complex project—constitute usual examples of thechallenges of creating mutual engagement, joint enterprise, andshared repertoires when members cannot either interact on a recur-rent basis or work in the same context (DeSanctis & Monge, 1999;Kraut, Steinfield, Chan, Butler, & Hoag, 1999; Majchrzack, Rice,Malhotra, King, & Ba, 2000). Finally, as already pointed out, prac-tices are situated; they depend on common material and historical




and social conditions. The sharing of work practices when mem-bers remain geographically distant and have no way to experienceeach other’s activities is anything but obvious.

The second question (How may NoPs emerge from the actionsof members of local CoPs?) is closely related to the first one. Therelationships among local CoPs and the emergence of NoPs thatconnect these communities deserve attention. This article contendsthat a better understanding of the emergence of NoPs and of theconnections between CoPs and NoPs should illuminate the ques-tion of the foundation and characteristics of NoPs as well. Investi-gating the emergence of NoPs should help to understand what canbe shared across local contexts and how a situation of shared prac-tice may be extended beyond material settings of direct encounters.More specifically, this article investigates how ICTs, especiallyintranet systems, might be used to connect CoPs and NoPs.

ICTS TO CONNECT COPS AND NOPS

Indeed, tenants of the CoPs literature have proposed that CoPsmay appropriate ICTs, and that these appropriations may transformtheir internal dynamics (Hayes, 2001; Hayes & Walsham, 2001).Wenger (2000) described software packages dedicated to CoPs,whereas Brown (1998) claimed that the intranet technology couldbe integrated in real and local work practices. Also, Pan andLeidner (2003) showed that ICTs may be used to connect CoPs andto allow for the sharing of knowledge beyond geographical dis-tances. However, the link between CoPs and NoPs through ICTshas not yet been fully explored.

For more than two decades, the information systems (IS) fieldhas, however, developed several streams of research that offer keyinsights to understand how the use of ICTs may constitute a linkbetween CoPs and NoPs. A first, abundant body of research hasinvestigated how remote groups may be interconnected via ICTs(Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Kerr, 1982). Technologies such as computerconferencing, discussion Listservs, or online support groups mayhelp members of different groups exchange information and ideas(Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). This stream of research provides interest-




ing observations on how, thanks to electronic communications,agents create new links beyond their usual spheres of sociability(Rheingold, 2000; Wellman et al., 1996). The issue of interconnec-tion of local CoPs in an overall NoP, however, differs slightly fromthe topics investigated by this body of literature. Indeed, onlinecommunities consist of members who do not need to know eachother, other than from electronic communications, and who do notnecessarily share the same occupational practices. Members ofNoPs, on the other hand, are supposedly connected beyond geo-graphical distance by shared practices. Although much can betransferred through digital media, the richness of a material con-text, direct interactions, and idiosyncrasies of work can hardly beconveyed without actual copresence. NoPs, therefore, do not poseexactly the same challenges as online communities.

Another stream of research in the IS literature has investigatedhow different social contexts influence the use of ICTs and how, inturn, the appropriation of ICTs transforms these contexts. Rice andGattiker (2001), for instance, provided a review of this abundantbody of research works. In this view, the use of ICTs does notmerely replace or mimic direct interactions or real-world collabo-ration, and it inherently takes place in a specific social context. Newtechnologies make it possible to communicate beyond usual tem-poral and geographical barriers, but they do not provide their userswith the physical and social cues that accompany face-to-faceinteractions (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986; Trevino, Lengel, & Daft,1987). The use of new technologies does not, therefore, simplyreproduce or replace face-to-face communications. What happensonline is not the mere mirror of what happens in the material world.Also, the use of new technologies depends on macro-, meso-, andmicrosocial contexts (Markus, 1994a, 1994b; Zack, 1994; Zack &McKenney, 1995). For instance, members of groups who alreadycollaborated often appear to be the main users of groupwaresystems (Vandenbosch & Ginsberg, 1996).

The use of new technologies, however, also takes part in the on-going transformation of work and sociability contexts (Orlikowski,2000). It may thus contribute to the emergence of networks thatwould connect geographically distant CoPs. The structurationistperspective on the incidence of the use of ICTs in organizations has




insisted on the idea that, over time, agents use technologies in waysthat contribute to the reproduction and transformation of structuralproperties of social systems (Orlikowski, 1992; Poole & DeSanctis,1990, 1994). The structuration perspective accounts for the contra-dictory impacts of ICTs in organizations (Robey & Boudreau,1999). It suggests that the implementation and gradual appropria-tion of new technologies get integrated in a social context thatsimultaneously informs the use of ICTs and becomes transformedby it. Social contexts get redefined as agents, possibly from diverselocations, start using ICTs. The social dimensions of the use oftechnology may change over time, and the reflexivity of users givesmeaning to the use of the new technologies (Ngwenyama & Lee,1997).

Building on these insights, this article studies how members oflocal CoPs may use ICTs and, more specifically, intranet systems,and how such use may contribute to the creation of relationshipsamong local CoPs and to the emergence of NoPs. Intranet systems,internal networks based on IP universal standards, aggregate andintegrate various computing applications, such as e-mail, data-bases, groupware systems, forums, and occupations software (Ryan,1998; Scheepers & Damsgaard, 1997). Intranet systems may bemade available to some or all members of an organization. There-fore, specific groups may implement and appropriate their ownspecific intranet and protect it with passwords and various levels ofsecurity. Intranets mark a distinction between insiders and outsid-ers of the system (Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2001). Further-more, flexible features of intranet systems may be adapted to vari-ous organizational contexts and used to achieve diverse goals (e.g.,to communicate, work, collaborate, and control, in particular).They may then be appropriated by members of specific CoPs andcontribute to the emergence of NoPs, as this article reports.

Understanding how this emergence may or may not take placerequires empirical investigations. The research this article reports,therefore, relied on two case studies to provide tentative answers tothe following key question: Assuming that work, knowledge, andthe learning of local CoPs are situated, how may the use of intranetsconnect dispersed agents and extend the features of CoPs from thelocal to the network level?




METHODOLOGY

The two case studies this research relies on relate how membersof local CoPs used intranet systems and how their use contributedto the emergence of NoPs connecting remote communities.

A TWO-CASE RESEARCH DESIGN

The adopted research design balanced potentially conflictingobjectives of empirical investigations to track the emergence ofNoPs. On one hand, observations had to be sufficiently detailed totrack idiosyncratic practices and to identify the main features ofidentification processes that occur in real work contexts (Barley,1996; Barley & Kunda, 2001). Attention to both micro- andmesoprocesses required fine-grained investigations and thus didnot allow for the examination of multiple, distinct contexts. On theother hand, cross-case comparisons allowed researchers to identifyand analyze frequent patterns and their conditions of appearance(Eisenhardt, 1991; Yin, 1989).

This research, therefore, relied on two case studies. Investiga-tions for each case, Buyers’ Fasty (BF) and Environmental Health(EH), depicted the specific work activities, interactions, and social-ization processes occurring in each setting. For each case, observa-tions concerned both local CoPs (colleagues who shared the samematerial work environment) and the overall network relating thesecommunities (the connections of these distinct communities). Foreach case, investigations assessed whether and how the use of anintranet system had encouraged the appearance of links amonglocal communities and of an overall network that could be labeledas an NoP. Cross-case analysis then aimed at identifying commonand differing patterns to get a deeper understanding of theprocesses at hand.

CASES SELECTION

Three conditions helped select the cases. First, the two cases hadto concern specific occupations whose members worked for the




same overall organization but in dispersed local services. This firstcriterion made it likely that CoPs had emerged at the local level. Inboth cases, members from the same local service interacted daily,exhibited close work activities, cooperated on some projects, andmutually experienced the building of a joint history. According tothe second condition, before the implementation of the intranet,these remote local teams, in both cases, had no experience of sus-tained relationships or communications. Members from dispersedteams did not meet or talk over the phone on a regular basis. Thissecond condition made it probable that no NoP preexisted theintranet. This second condition presumed that an NoP only exists ifits members are at least partially aware of it and if they exchangeknowledge or practices throughout the network. Third, agents fromthe two cases had to have been using the intranet system for at least2 years. This third condition ensured that most agents could havebecome familiar with the intranet. Also, it made it possible toreview midterm processes. As NoPs supposedly connect numerouslocal communities, it was likely that processes of emergence ofsuch NoPs would take time.

The combination of these three conditions does not allow me toconclude from the empirical observations that the use of theintranet had actually created the NoP. Rather, consistent with thestructurationist perspective, it allows for the exploration of complexprocesses of reproduction or transformation of social-structuralproperties with the gradual appropriations of new technologies.Data collection and analysis aimed at identifying the processes thatconcerned the connection among local communities and the appea-rance of an NoP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each case relied on 20 semistructured interviews (denoted aspersonal communications). The selection of respondentsattempted to represent agents’ diversity in terms of length of ser-vice, localization, and specialization. Interviews aimed at under-standing agents’ daily environment, actions, and sense of belong-ing to diverse occupational groupings. Interviewees also describedtheir use and perceptions of the intranet dedicated to their work




group and recounted how their use may have changed over time andaffected their work habits and communications with colleagues.Moreover, two focus groups (one for each case) also took place todetermine if the processes that characterize CoPs are fundamen-tally social. Focus groups consisted of 3-hour meetings with fivecolleagues, who belonged to the same organization and achievedsimilar tasks, from different local CoPs. Respondents discussedtheir use of the intranet and talked about recent changes in theiroccupation. Open-ended, follow-up questions served as back up ifthe discussion extinguished, which seldom occurred. Repeated vis-its on site also allowed for instructive, informal conversations withkey informants. These discussions proved invaluable to getting amore longitudinal perspective on the cases. Finally, the intranetsites specifically dedicated to CoPs were also browsed. Table 1summarizes the collected data.

To extract proper interpretations from these rich but bulky quali-tative data and to relate empirical observations to the theoreticalaccount of CoPs (Klein & Myers, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1984;Yin, 1989), monographs were written. Then, the main conceptualdimensions were applied and compared to empirical investiga-tions. Analyses developed from a two-fold comparison: betweencases and between cases and theory.

CASES DESCRIPTIONS

THE BF CASE

About 2,500 buyers dealt with orders from the local agenciesand headquarters of a public transportation company, Fasty,1 andrelationships with multiple suppliers for routine or exceptionalsupplies. Buyers worked in local services of about 15 to 20 peopleand in the headquarters of the company. Save for an annual meetingin the headquarters, in which they reviewed the previous year’s per-formance and previewed forthcoming challenges, buyers from dif-ferent local entities did not usually meet.




TABLE 1: Collected Data for the Case Studies

What? How? Why?

Interviews 20 interviews for each case. Semistructured, recorded, tran-scribed. Maximal diversity of respondents (length of ser-vice, localization, jobs).

Comprehend the perception and main use of the intranet andthe work group for different employees. Observation of themain use of the intranet. Description of jobs and workenvironment.

Focus groups 3-hour meetings with about five respondents (colleagues fromdifferent groups but similar tasks). Informal discussion andsemistructured meeting guide. Entirely recorded andtranscribed.

Get a view of the social dimension of use of the intranet and ofthe dynamics of CoPs. Processes experienced by differentgroups accounted for thanks to the confrontation of anddiscussion among different members.

Key informants Repeated visits to sites. Privileged relations with specificmembers of CoPs.

Selection of respondents for interviews and focus groups.Lengthy discussions that put processes in perspective.

Browsing of intranet Browsing of dedicated intranet on site, most of the time inpresence of a member of a local CoP.

Knowledge of the structure and content of the site. Under-standing of the perception of the intranet by members ofCOPs.

NOTE: CoPs = communities of practice.

18

by Giorgio B

ertini on October 13, 2010

mcq.sagepub.com

Dow

nloaded from


Until 1985, the supply process was entirely achieved at the locallevel. Buyers collected orders from the different services of theirlocal offices, and transmitted them to their closest, geographically,suppliers. In 1985, the buyers’ head management at the nationallevel decided to take advantage of a new available technology,called minitel. Minitel was a nationwide proprietary network thatmade it possible to exchange basic information among all local ser-vices. Minitel offered a list of the most common supplies (about50% of the goods buyers usually dealt with) and helped aggregatethe ordering of some of these supplies to the least-expensive suppli-ers. However, because the minitel system was not user-friendly,many buyers did not know how to integrate it into their daily prac-tices. Moreover, the system was very fastidious to update; its listingwas not exhaustive or up-to-date.

In 1996, the minitel system migrated to an intranet system. Theintranet comprised an expanded catalog of supplies (85% of stock)and, thanks to a dynamic database, prices and specifications ofgoods were automatically updated. Based on the browser system,the intranet was also very user-friendly; most buyers spontaneouslyknew how to use it. From 1996 to 1998, not all local services hadaccess to the intranet, so for 2 years the minitel and the intranet sys-tems were simultaneously used.

Buyers and their internal clients used the various intranet appli-cations in the process of procurement. Clients had access to the cat-alog of supplies. They chose among supplies and filled out a form.Clients could still order their supplies in the traditional way (callingbuyers on the phone to order supplies and then sending a fax of con-firmation), but in about 3 years, this traditional way was virtuallyabandoned. Clients ordered most of their supplies online. Localsuppliers received the order form via e-mail. Orders were thenaggregated beyond the local level. The high volume of orders madeit possible for buyers to negotiate with suppliers. The new dealsmade the prices of supplies drop (about 5% for most items) and ledto less expensive and faster shipments.

In 1999, a new application made it possible for buyers and theirclients to track the shipment of orders. Clients highly appreciatedthis application for it gave them direct access to informationregarding their shipment and informed them of potential problems.Buyers valued the professionalism this feature provided them, but




they sometimes resented this application for leading to excessivetransparency. Because the purchasing process had become highlyvisible, they felt they could be blamed for any delay in shipment.

Other folders and applications were gradually integrated in thesystem. A home page presenting the mission statement of buyers inthe company and its organizational and geographical structureintroduced the site. A forum provided tools for buyers to exchangeviews on their occupation and current problems. Only buyers andtheir managers could access the forum. However, contributions(i.e., questions and answers) remained scarce: Buyers feared that ifthey contributed too much to the forum, their superiors would thinkthat they were wasting their time. On the other hand, another appli-cation gained immediate popularity: the frequently asked ques-tions (FAQ) folder. Via e-mail, buyers sent questions regardingchanges or new offerings in the human resources policy or newstrategic orientations of their occupation to their headquarters.Employees from headquarters posted officially ratified answers totopical issues. The FAQ, which was automatically updated, wasfrequently used and highly praised by buyers. The intranet alsooffered a training application. Newcomers frequently used theapplication to become acquainted with buyers’ main activities andwith details of the ordering and shipping processes. Finally, in2001, a new extranet system was implemented. It connected buyerswith about 10 of their most common suppliers and made it possibleto automatically check information regarding the availability andprices of supplies and to send orders directly to suppliers (withoutrecourse to phone, fax, and regular mail). Table 2 summarizes theinformation about BF’s intranet.

THE EH CASE

About 1,500 EH professionals from a governmental healthagency worked in local services of 15 to 20 agents. These unitswere composed of 1 professional manager (an EH engineer), about5 other EH engineers, and about 10 EH technicians. These profes-sionals dealt with issues related to the application of environmentallaw (e.g., pollution levels in the air or in drinkable or pool water).They checked whether new regulations were being applied in their




TABLE 2: Buyers’s Fasty Intranet

Intranet Page/Application Content Availability Uses

Homepage Mission statement and objectives of the buyers’occupation

Fasty employees By Fasty employees other thanbuyers

Repertory Index of all names, addresses, phone numbers, ande-mail addresses of buyers

Fasty employees Fasty employees, especiallybuyers

Catalog and price index Listing of 85% of the most frequently boughtsupplies

Buyers and their internal clients Buyers and their internal clients

Ordering forms Forms to be sent electronically to order newsupplies


Tracking system Application that tracks the state of the orderingprocess and the probable date of delivery


Link to an extranet system Direct orders from Fasty buyers to some of theirmain suppliers

Buyers and their suppliers Buyers and their suppliers

Forum Free contributions on various occupational topics Buyers and their managers Seldom usedFrequently asked questions Questions and validated answers on occupational

topicsBuyers and their managers Used by buyers

NOTE: The pseudonym Fasty is used to preserve the confidentiality of the real organization.

21

by Giorgio B


mcq.sagepub.com

Dow

nloaded from


geographical area of operation and controlled public facilities,restaurants, pools, and so forth. They were also in charge ofalerting the public when pollution levels in the air were reachedor when sanitary problems arose, such as local cases of meningi-tis and salmonella. Members of local units met quarterly at theregional level and managers of local services met once a year atEH’s headquarters.

Members of local services complained that they lacked opportu-nities to exchange thoughts on their occupational practices and toget information on specific projects (e.g., new local media cam-paigns and public health emergencies) that other services couldhave undertaken. In the late 1980s to the beginning of the 1990s,Marc,2 the manager of a local service, proposed the creation of apaper-based newsmagazine dedicated to these occupational issues.To get the financial backup and logistical resources to create thejournal, Marc had to convince various committees from the head-quarters of the governmental agency. Because of the bureaucraticorganization of the agency, it took a few years for the project to beofficially validated. In 1995, when the project obtained its finalapproval, its very nature had changed: An electronic version of theproject was to be carried out. More specifically, in 1995, the gov-ernmental agency started implementing intranet systems. Marc,therefore, created an occupational intranet, Enviro, aimed at pub-lishing legal information as well as concrete experiences from localteams. Enviro became available in late 1996 and the beginning of1997.

Marc became the Webmaster of the intranet. He worked withtwo assistants, previously an EH engineer and a technician, whowere acquainted with the idiosyncrasies of the occupation. TheWeb team worked in a local service. This location in a local servicerather than in the headquarters made EH professionals feel thatEnviro was their tool and not just a token measure from the officialheadquarters. EH professionals, therefore, soon adopted the intra-net. They frequently browsed and actively contributed to it by send-ing Marc narrations of specific projects or experiences. The data-base of occupational experiences soon comprised more than 2,500entries that could be accessed directly or through a search engine.The downside of this was that updating was a fastidious andlengthy process. Until the very beginning of 2003, there was no




local server for Enviro. New contents for the intranet were thusburned on a CD-ROM that was eventually sent to the IT departmentof the headquarters to be put online. Updates and enrichments ofthe intranet occurred only on a monthly basis, which limited theinterest in the intranet in cases of public health emergencies.

All agents who worked for the governmental agency couldbrowse all folders and applications of Enviro. Enviro becameknown throughout the agency as the only occupational intranet.Other existing intranet sites posted official information regardingspecific departments (e.g., department of hospitals, department ofhuman resources, etc.), but they did not present occupational mate-rials to be integrated into daily work activities. The EH professiongained greater visibility throughout the agency thanks to the avail-ability and reputation of Enviro, and its members highly praised thepositive image they considered Enviro provided their profession.When they wanted to get new information on unusual topics, how-ever, they sent an e-mail to all or some of their colleagues ratherthan putting a question on the EH forum from the intranet. The e-mail system was more private and favored faster exchanges on atopic. Once the topic had been examined at length and a profession-ally validated answer had been given to a question, Marc usuallyintegrated it as a new entry in the database.

The intranet comprised a home page with a link to a page dedi-cated to the mission statement and objectives of the EH profession.In addition to the occupational experience database and the forum,Enviro also provided an exhaustive repertory of EH engineers andtechnicians and a database of EH-related laws and regulations.Table 3 summarizes the information about EH’s intranet.

FROM COPS TO NOPS WITH INTRANET USE

This section presents how, in the BF and EH cases, members oflocal CoPs used their intranet in ways that contributed to theemergence of an NoP. It then explores which conditions supportedthis emergence and investigates the building of complementaritybetween the community and network levels. Finally, it extends thesituatedness of CoPs in a relational perspective.




TABLE 3: Environmental Health’s Intranet

Intranet Page/Application Content Availability Uses

Homepage Mission statement, official objectives, and organi-zation of the EH profession

All agents from the ministry Used by ministerial agents

Repertory Listing of the areas of expertise, address, phonenumber, and e-mail address of all EH agents

All agents from the ministry Frequently used by EH professionals

Law and regulation database Access to all laws and regulations (that emanatefrom national and EU institutions) concerningEH


Experiences database Entries of more than 2,500 specific experiencesencountered by EH agents on various topics


Forum Questions and answers on various topics of occu-pational interest

All agents from the ministry Seldom used—scarce contributions

Link to the e-mail system Link to the mailbox of the browsing ministerialagent

All agents from the ministry Used by EH professionals to postquestions to their colleagues

NOTE: The pseudonym EH is used to preserve the confidentiality of the real organization. EH = Environmental Health.

24

by Giorgio B


mcq.sagepub.com

Dow

nloaded from


EMERGENCE OF NOPSFROM THE USE OF INTRANETS

In the two case studies, the use of the intranet extended the threefeatures that characterize CoPs from the local communitarian levelto a broader level. The stretching of these features made membersof various local CoPs feel that they shared practices and identityand contributed to the emergence of an NoP.

According to Wenger (1998) (cf. The Three Defining Featuresand Two Foundations of CoPs section), mutual engagement, jointenterprise, and shared repertoire constitute the three defining fea-tures of CoPs. Observations from the cases suggested that the useof the intranet extended these three features from the local to thenetwork level. First, people who belong to a CoP engage in actionswhose meaning is mutually negotiated. An occupational intranetsystem frequently contains databases with reports or narrations onactions accomplished by people who share the same occupationand deal with close issues even though they are not colocated. Theuse of such intranets makes distant colleagues aware of theirmutual engagement in a common activity. For instance, membersof local services from the EH case worked to promote the enforce-ment of EH legislation in their regional zone. Exactly how theyenforced these laws depended on their local context (i.e., specificneeds in the geographic area, what should be the focus of commu-nication plans, and so forth). In all local services, however, agentshad to accomplish the same kinds of activities. In the EH case, asagents contributed to and browsed the experiential database, theygained a sense that they were mutually engaged with colleaguesbeyond their local service.

The experiential folder, it’s so good for us. You know, we used torely only on what a colleague from the same service would do whenfaced with a particular problem. Now, we have access to what theother ones from EH are doing. And they deal with the same issues aswe do, even though we do not meet them. (Ghislain, EH engineer,personal communication, January 25, 2000)

In the BF case, too, the use of the intranet contributed to thestretching of mutual engagement.




Look, with the intranet, it’s not just that we are more efficient, it isalso that we are more numerous. Put it simply, we are somethinglike 2,000 buyers to deal with supplies at [Fasty]. That’s a lot. (Eric,BF buyer, personal communication, November 21, 1999)

In their own words, Ghislain and Eric expressed that their use ofthe intranet made them aware of their mutual engagement with col-leagues beyond their immediate work environment.

Second, the use of the intranet may also create a sense of jointenterprise that goes beyond local CoPs. An intranet system makesit possible for geographically remote groups to exchange informa-tion on what they are doing and why they are doing it and to get con-nected to a network unified by joint enterprise. In the BF case, forinstance, buyers from all local services aggregated their localorders on a national base, which provided them with a sense of theirjoint enterprise that exceeded the communitarian level.

With the intranet, our occupation has really been taken at anotherlevel. We are not just dealing with local supplies anymore, but ourorders are put together on a national basis. Our job is halfway local,halfway national. (Lilian, BF buyer, personal communication,December 21, 1999)

In the EH case, the use of the intranet did not change the scale ofactivities of local agents (local agents still dealt mainly with localconcerns). However, it made these agents aware that geographi-cally remote colleagues shared their concerns and acted in closeways. This also contributed to the emergence of a sense of jointenterprise connecting local EH services.

Enviro, I think, is especially valued by EH engineers and techni-cians because it made them attentive to their sharing activitiesbeyond distance. They felt more supported. (Marc, founder of theEH intranet, personal communication, January 25, 2000)

Third, an intranet may also present folders and applications thatprovide a shared repertoire jointly constituted by local CoPs. Sucha common repository on the intranet takes an explicit and concreteform (e.g., the mission statement on the home page and the reper-tory of all members of the occupation throughout the organization).




Members of local CoPs appropriate the repository from the intranetand combine it with their own more local, implicit, and intangiblerepository (e.g., socialization rituals and work routines). In the EHcase, the experiential folder indexed multiple experiences. Also,EH professionals could refer to the exhaustive repertory to contactcolleagues who had authored these narrations.

I have access to experiences from everywhere. . . . If I want, also, Ican contact the one who has written the experience to get moredetails. It is good to know that we have these pieces of informationat hand. (Gaelle, EH technician, personal communication, February28, 2000)

In the BF case, the catalog of supplies constituted a reliable ref-erence for buyers and their clients. This common repertoire madebuyers more efficient in their work because the database wasdynamically updated and they could negotiate better prices withsuppliers.

In the two cases, the use of the intranet favored the emergence ofthe three defining features of CoPs (i.e., mutual engagement, jointenterprise, and shared repertoire) at the level of the network con-necting local CoPs. The emergence of such an NoP also came withthe extension of shared identity and practice from the local commu-nitarian level to the overall network level.

Regarding identity, the availability of an intranet dedicated to aspecific occupation favors identification processes thanks to inter-nal and external recognition of work achieved by these profession-als. The use of the intranet may then support Dutton et al.’s (1994)two main dimensions of identity: the internal image (who onebelieves oneself to be) and the external image (how one thinks oth-ers see her or him). In the BF case, for instance, using the intranetnurtured the buyers’sense that they shared common goals and closecompetencies not only servicewide, but nationwide.

We are all buyers for [Fasty]. You can work in the North, South,anywhere, if you’re a buyer from this company, there are things thatyou just know and that make you a good professional. When youbrowse the intranet, it becomes even more obvious. (Lilian, BFbuyer, personal communication, December 21, 1999)




Identification processes at the network level also come from theexternal recognition that members of the occupation consider theintranet provides them. This was especially exemplified in the EHcase: The intranet made the EH occupation more visible through-out the governmental agency, whose long-established bureaucraticstructure had not favored the recognition of specific occupations.EH professionals considered that their occupation had becomemuch more recognized by all agents in the governmental agencythanks to the availability of the intranet. Note that observationsfrom the case did not determine whether agents other than EH pro-fessionals actually valued the EH profession more than they usedto. What was significant, nevertheless, was the change in the exter-nal image that EH members themselves associated with theirprofession.

Enviro has been especially good because it has made the othersfrom the [governmental agency] aware that we existed, first of all(laughs). . . . And, also, that what we did was important, concernedtopical issues, and that we had specific significant competences.(Edouard, EH engineer, personal communication, February 9, 2000)

The use of the intranet also makes it possible for members ofgeographically dispersed CoPs to share work practices, whetherpart of their job is accomplished online. In the BF case, the use ofthe intranet became an integral part of buyers’ daily work. Buyersreceived e-mail orders that had been downloaded from the intranetby their clients, and they processed the orders by aggregating localdemands at the regional and national levels. This application of theintranet transformed actual work practices of individual buyers andgave a national dimension to their job as orders were now aggre-gated at the national level. Part of their job was to relate with theirremote colleagues to get the best conditions in ordering.

In the EH case, the use of the intranet was not directly integratedin the job, but it informed actual work practices and contributed tothe emergence of a common practice at the NoP level. The experi-ential database, in particular, constituted a resource that all mem-bers of local services shared. Agents accessed work experiencesfrom remote locations, and they found inspiration to solve theirown concerns by knowing the practices of their colleagues.




WHAT FAVORED THE EMERGENCEOF THE NOP? A COMBINATION OFOCCUPATIONAL INITIATIVES, OFFICIALLEGITIMATION, AND TECHNICAL FLEXIBILITY

In both cases, the combination of three conditions seemed tohave facilitated the links among CoPs and the appearance of anNoP: occupational initiatives, official legitimation, and technicalflexibility.

First, CoPs and NoPs are based on the sharing of work practicesand identities. In the two cases, members of actual CoPs hadlaunched the intranet project, and the management of the intranetremained mainly in the hands of the professionals themselves. Thiscontributed to the appropriation of the intranet as a work tool and toits consideration as contributing to the recognition of the profes-sion at the level of the overall organization and not just of localservices.

Enviro is our intranet. Marc launched it from a local service, and thismeant a lot. It signified that the intranet was not controlled by Paris[i.e., by the official headquarters of the governmental agency], but,on the contrary, that it was a truly professional intranet. Somethingfor us and by us. (Marie, EH engineer, personal communication,February 14, 2000)

Also, as members of the occupation managed and contributed tothe intranet, the latter contained folders and applications that wereof direct use in daily work practices. The application that aggre-gated orders on the BF intranet, in particular, fit the specific needsof buyers’ practice and made them feel they were becoming betterprofessionals.

Although occupational initiatives and leadership in the intranetproject seemed a necessary condition to ensure its appropriation bymembers of the CoPs, they did not warrant the resources to sustainand develop the intranet over time. A second condition contributedto the success of the intranet project and the subsequent emergenceof an NoP: the official validation and support of the intranet project.In the two cases, the official management of the host organizationsauthorized and funded the intranet projects. Official approval and




resources gave the Webmasters room and legitimation to enrich theintranet.

[The headquarters] have always been supportive of BF intranet.Imagine, they released me of my functions of manager of a serviceand gave me the budget to build a team for the intranet. Money istight, as usual, but we’ve been pretty lucky with this support. (Jean-Pierre, Webmaster of the BF intranet, personal communication,December 21, 1999)

The official validation also ensured that the intranet projectcould go beyond its local origin and reach virtually all groups ofprofessionals regardless of their location. The absence of officialauthorization and logistical supplies would have made it muchmore difficult for the intranet to gain its visibility among profes-sionals and throughout the host organization.

Our team is not located in [the headquarters], but as the [govern-mental agency] had authorized the project and, to some extent, pro-vided means to achieve it, the site has very easily found its way inmost local services. (Marc, founder and Webmaster of the EHintranet, personal communication, January 25, 2000)

Yet, these two favorable circumstances could not ensure that thesite would actually work. A third important condition concernedtechnology. Indeed, the intranet technology provided a very user-friendly environment and a highly flexible technological platform.Professionals from both cases acknowledged and valued such user-friendliness because the use of new technologies had not previ-ously been part of their work routines.

I know how to use the intranet. I almost always find the informationI am looking for. That’s another good thing about Enviro. And I’mtelling you, technophobe as I used to be, if I can browse the intranet,anybody can. (Marie-Pierre, EH engineer, personal communica-tion, February 3, 2000)

Also, user-friendliness of the intranet contributed to profession-als’ perception of the intranet as a tool designed by and for them,which, in turn, favored their actual appropriation of the intranet.




Fasty is not pure technology. It is technology for us, technology tohelp us offer a better service. (Jean-Jacques, BF buyer, personal com-munication, January 31, 2000)

The second feature of the intranet technology (i.e., a flexibletechnological platform) made it possible to upgrade the site contin-uously and to adapt to the needs of local communities and the over-all network. On the other hand, the EH case exemplified the impor-tance of the technological dimension. The lack of direct access tothe intranet server rendered the updating and upgrading of Enviroespecially laborious and lengthy. Therefore, to deal with an espe-cially topical and urgent issue (e.g., in case of sanitarian crises suchas the embargo related to the Creutzfeld-Jakob disease), Marccould not rely on the intranet, so he had to send a collective e-mailto the managers of local services, hoping that the message would berelayed to all members of these services.

In the BF case, on the other hand, the intranet became graduallymore sophisticated and more in line with the needs of the overallprofession of buyers in the company. At first, the intranet merelycontained the same listing of supplies as the minitel. Then, theimplementation of a dynamic database ensured that a more exhaus-tive and up-to-date catalog of supplies was online. Then, the elec-tronic, automatic order form simplified, quickened, and made theordering process more efficient. Finally, the intranet was connectedto an extranet system with the biggest suppliers.

In short, the combination of these three auspicious conditions(i.e., occupational initiative and management, official legitimation,and suitable technology) contributed to the appropriation of theintranet by individual professionals and favored the emergence of anetwork of practice connecting local CoPs.

INTERDEPENDENCIES AND TENSIONSWITH THE USE OF THE INTRANET

In the two cases, the use of the intranet favored growing interde-pendencies between the local and network levels. Agents learned toobtain resources from the overall network and their local communi-




ties, according to their specific needs, and to combine theseresources in their actual work practices. For instance, in the EHcase, the experiential data basis soon constituted a trusted reservoirof experiences narrated by experts located throughout the network.These network experts provided their experiences online and couldbe reached via telephone or e-mail. Agents had recourse to theseexperiences and to network experts when they had to deal withunusual issues (e.g., media planning for new audiences such asschools). Simultaneously, they continued to appeal to their closestcolleagues, with whom they directly interacted daily, to getanswers on routine issues. The use of the intranet combined withdirect socialization processes made local and network experts com-plement each other according to specific needs.

When I face an arduous problem, now I ask my colleagues around.Just as I used to do. But there are some issues that are new to us andmight not be so new to other colleagues from other services. On theintranet, we find information on any subject. I got to know thingsand people from any part of the territory, and this helps me deal withmost unusual issues. (Jean, EH technician, personal communica-tion, February 10, 2000)

Also, local experts turned into network experts as they increas-ingly put some of their experiences online. Overall, the use of theintranet and direct interactions made EH agents know more expertson a greater variety of subjects. They also had access to their expe-riences and could have exchanges with them. The community andthe network levels became more and more connected as agents hadspontaneous recourse to their local communities and to their net-work to find answers to issues of professional concern. NoPs andCoPs interconnected as they met the complementary needs of theirmembers, which helped them become better professionals. Moreprecisely, members of CoPs and NoPs considered themselvesbetter professionals when they combined resources from bothlevels to accomplish their work.

My colleagues in the service, the intranet, anything, as long as itgives me the answers to deal with my work. (Jean, EH technician,personal communication, February 10, 2000)




Socialization and learning processes of newcomers in localcommunities also exhibited this interplay between the communityand network level. Socialization processes of “peripheral partici-pants” that help them become native in their new work environmentand knowledgeable of the meaning of the actions that are expectedfrom them have long been presented as key features of CoPs (Lave& Wenger, 1991). The implementation and use of the intranet, inour two cases, transformed these socialization processes. In partic-ular, newcomers in local CoPs were usually already familiar withWeb technologies and easily learned how to browse their new occu-pational intranet. They remained unaccustomed to the specificitiesof their new job and had to learn many tricks of the trade from old-timers. Old-timers taught them how to deal with daily issues andmade them aware of some of the official and informal expectationsof their jobs. Old-timers, on the other hand, had usually worked fora long time without the intranet. They, therefore, did not feel thedesire to learn how to use the intranet and were not spontaneouslyaware of its contents. Newcomers and old-timers thus comple-mented each other: Old-timers learned how to use the intranet fromnewcomers, and newcomers became cognizant of the specificitiesof their new job thanks to the old-timers.

Since I’ve been here I’ve used the intranet. It’s very useful. Funny,though, because not all my colleagues used it a lot before I arrived.You know, they were doing their job pretty well without theintranet. . . . My colleagues have helped me a lot understanding thiscrazy, complex structure that we have at [Fasty]. I’ve also showedthem a few shortcuts to the intranet. (Dominique, BF, personal com-munication, March 3, 2000)

The use of the intranet, therefore, was integrated into the social-ization processes of newcomers. At the level of a CoP, the powerdynamic between newcomers and old-timers shifted with the use ofthe intranet. In the two cases, these changes came with increasedcollaboration and alignment between these two groups.

Nevertheless, the use of the intranet came with tensions andlatent uneasiness as the intranet increased the visibility of the CoPsand the NoP. The availability of the intranet gave transparency tosome processes that professionals once kept to themselves. Mem-




bers of CoPs and the NoP feared that part of their use of the intranetcould be considered by others (i.e., their peers, their hierarchy, andother, more remote, colleagues) as unprofessional. In both cases,the pressure associated with increasing visibility of the communi-ties and the network was especially discernible in the lack of useand contributions to the forum. Professionals feared that their peerswould consider them less competent if they posted obvious ques-tions. They also expected suspicion from their management if theyspent too much time online (as opposed to directly on the job) ask-ing questions or contributing to the intranet. The forum constitutedan application whose inherent transparency made professionalsanxious that they would not be perceived as professionals if theyused it too much.

On the other hand, such transparency also made it possible fornetwork experts to emerge and become valued as experts at thenational level. Therefore, professionals and the Webmaster teamshad to find a balance between the positively expected and the nega-tively resented incidences of increasing transparency. In the BFcase, the Webmaster solved this dilemma by implementing accessrights and several security levels on the intranet. The flexibility ofthe intranet technology gave the Webmaster the ability to differen-tiate between audiences on the intranet and to ensure that onlyauthorized users accessed private parts of the intranet, such as theFAQs. Also, the ordering application was available to all buyers,but clients could only track orders that concerned them, which gavean additional sense of professionalism to the intranet. In the EHcase, the technology in use was less sophisticated, and all ministe-rial agents had access to all parts of the intranet. To reintroduce pri-vacy to the professional network, the intranet Webmaster hadrecourse to the e-mail system rather than the intranet. He sent e-mails to collect data on new subjects and aggregated the mostreliable answers on the intranet.

IT IS ALL RELATED: REDEFINING SITUATEDNESS

Conceptually, the emergence of NoPs through the use of intra-nets by members of local CoPs leads us to reconsider the situat-edness of practice. This discussion is summarized in Figure 1 and




Table 4. It shows that the use of an intranet dislocates what is local.It contends that situatedness is relational and discusses what isshared in extended contexts through the use of intranets.

Our two case studies suggest that the use of intranets contributedto the extension of what agents considered their context of workbeyond their usual local setting. The recurrent use of the intranetenforced a sense of joint enterprise, provided a reservoir of bestpractices and tools, and, through this, supported an alignment ofpractices and identities beyond local communities. The use of theintranet thus extended what agents defined as their work environ-ment. It dislocated features of organizational life that were oncerestricted to the local environment. Of course, agents still reliedon face-to-face interactions with their geographically close col-leagues. Moreover, their actions still took into account the idiosyn-crasies of their local environment. With the use of the intranet,however, agents also had access to resources beyond their immedi-ate material setting and reached remote experts whose knowledgewas relevant to their specific concerns. The use of the intranet cre-ated a sense of proximity beyond geographical distance and madeagents more aware of how close their practices were to those oftheir distant peers. Through the use of the intranet, the sense oflocality of work gained partial autonomy from the immediate mate-rial context of daily activities and face-to-face interactions.

This finding of the extension of what is local echoes previousfindings that situatedness is relational (Carlile, 2002; Latour, 1996).Sharing at the network level is not confined to settings in whichagents actually work together. Rather, it comes from knowing thatpeers work on the same issues and can provide insights on these


Individual agents

Community of practice

Network of practice

Figure 1: Connecting Agents, Communities of Practice and a Network of Practice



TABLE 4: Relations Among CoPs, the NoP, and the Use of Intranets

Item CoP Agents Use of the Intranet NoP

Mutual engagement Recognition of the engagement in closetasks through direct interactions

Awareness of the presence of peers beyondlocal settings

Extension of the recognition of mutualengagement; visibility of close tasks

Joint enterprise Common goals and duties expressed inrepeated interactions

Contents of the intranet reaffirm the jointenterprise

Remote colleagues exchange thoughtson their actions and objectives

Common repository Material and more symbolic resources;enacted in interactions and daily work

Constant access to multiple resources andexperts via direct or indirectrelationships

The intranet provides electronicresources that make sense to mem-bers of the NoP

Practice Recurrent and materially bounded workactivities

Agents rely on immediate and electronicresources to develop their practices

Transformation of daily work activities;greater visibility of practice

Identity Internal and external image in the proxi-mate setting

Identity at work developed with relation-ships and practices

Internal and external image: visibilityof the overall network through theintranet

NOTE: CoPs = communities of practice. NoP = network of practice.

36

by Giorgio B


mcq.sagepub.com

Dow

nloaded from


issues. The notions of CoPs and NoPs appear relational. To be con-nected, members of different local communities do not have towork together, interact directly, or collaborate, per se, on jointactivities. Of course, it is easier for agents who are colocated torelate to each other, exchange knowledge, and get a sense of whatthe others do. By extending what is local, however, the use of ICTsmakes it possible for remote colleagues to get connected despitegeographical distance.

In this relational view, both CoPs and NoPs consist of the rela-tionships among their members. The links among members ofCoPs or NoPs may be more or less dense and strong, but theinsights provided by the two case studies suggested that NoPs andCoPs possess the same features and are based on the same twofoundations. Moreover, both CoPs and NoPs emerge from the rela-tionships among their members. Therefore, there does not seem tobe any difference in nature between CoPs and NoPs. This relationalcommon nature of CoPs and NoPs may be exemplified in the fol-lowing situation. An old-timer from a local CoP who moves toanother local CoP theoretically becomes a newcomer in this secondCoP. Indeed, to become an insider in this new environment, he orshe would have to learn the details of the material arrangements ofwork and meet and make do with new colleagues, subordinates,and bosses. He or she would, however, quickly adapt to the new sit-uation faster than a complete newcomer in the CoP and NoP. He orshe would take advantage of being an old-timer in the NoP and relyon previous practices and relationships to learn more quickly howto perform in the new community.

This relational perspective on CoPs and NoPs sheds light onwhat is shared at the community and network levels throughintranet use. Without restricting their reflections to settings ofmaterial and face-to-face encounters, advocates of the practice per-spective insist on the local and situated dimension of practice(Bourdieu, 2000; De Certeau, 1980; Lave, 1988). ICTs cannottransfer the most implicit and intricate aspects of work. They onlyprovide impoverished interpretations of local practices. Findingsfrom the case studies (in line with the previously mentioned litera-ture on the structuring of organizations with the use of new technol-ogies) have, however, shown how members of local CoPs makesense of the resources provided by the technology. Agents recon-




textualize them in their context of work. Members of CoPs andNoPs appropriate the intranet in ways that fit their activities. Thesame intranet would not make much sense if it was used by outsid-ers from the practice at hand. The intranet thus appears as an instru-ment for insiders (of the CoPs and, in a related way, the NoP).

Expressed in another way, in such a multilayered, relational con-text, through their reflexivity, identity, and experiences, individualagents create links between CoPs and NoPs. The relational viewsuggests an interesting three-way relationship between agents,communities, and the network. Agents connect communities andthe network by using the intranet and by connecting themselveswith some of their peers beyond their local environment. Agentswho are densely related to each other at the level of local communi-ties also get connected with remote colleagues who do not share thesame material context but share practice and identity. A combina-tion of strong and weak links connects CoPs and enacts the NoP.The use of the intranet and the NoP only make sense because situ-ated agents and communities populate the network. On the otherhand, the emergence of the NoP also contributes to the transforma-tion of agents’practices and of relationships in local communities.

CONCLUSION

This article pointed out an intriguing gap between the situatednature of CoPs and their interrelationships in NoPs whose remotemembers share occupational activities but do not interact regularlyand do not experience the same work context. It then introducedintranet use as potentially favoring the emergence of such NoPs.This article considered that people appropriate new technologies inways that do not merely reproduce their immediate context butrather contribute to the transformation of their work environmentand sociability. It therefore aimed at understanding how the use ofintranet systems may contribute to the emergence of NoPs giventhe situated dimension of local CoPs.

The two case studies depicted how members of local CoPs usedintranet systems, established relationships with remote colleagues,and transformed their work activities. It showed that the three dis-




tinctive features of CoPs (mutual engagement, joint enterprise, andshared repertoire) were extended from the communitarian to thenetwork level thanks to intranet use. Also, processes of identifica-tion and experiences of common practices expanded beyond thelocal level. Members of local CoPs started electronically interact-ing regularly with remote colleagues, found resources to achievetheir activities from all parts of the networks, and prized the imageof professionalism they considered the intranet provided them.

Three conditions combined and supported the emergence of theNoP in the two case studies. First, members of local CoPs imple-mented and still managed the intranet themselves. The intranet thuscorresponded exactly to the needs of members of local CoPs andmade it possible to establish links among them. Second, the officialmanagement of the host organization validated the project and pro-vided material, organizational, and financial resources. Third, theintranet technology was user-friendly and highly flexible. It thuswarranted that the system be appropriated by most professionalsand be gradually transformed according to the changing needs oflocal CoPs and of the overall NoP. Managers hoping to encouragethe emergence of NoPs should try to set a supportive context bycombining these three conditions of occupational leadership of theproject, official resources, and technological flexibility.

Conceptually, results of this article appeared consistent with arelational perspective. In this view, CoPs and NoPs arise from moreor less dense and strong links among their members. Agents relateto each other directly and through electronically mediated commu-nications. More specifically, NoPs emerge as members of differentlocal CoPs start to communicate with each other and refer to awider structure than their usual materially bounded work environ-ment. The use of the intranet somewhat dislocates the situateddimension of work. In this way, it favors the emergence of linksamong CoPs and of the overall NoP.

Finally, the use of the intranet creates an emergent comple-mentarity between the local communitarian level and the networklevel. Local- and network-level experts complement each other:They offer support to unusual occupational problems and, in turn,receive the benefit of the recognition of their competencies beyondgeographical distance. Further research could fruitfully deepen thisobservation by studying more precisely how, in their daily practice,




agents interweave CoPs and NoPs and how this impacts work,socialization, and learning at the individual, communitarian, andnetwork levels.

NOTES

1. To preserve the confidentiality of the cases, the real names of the two studiedorganizations in which investigations took place have been concealed.

2. To preserve the confidentiality of the people, their real names have beenconcealed.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action per-spective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence forbringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly,41(3), 404-438.

Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science,12(1), 76-95.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action [Practical rea-sons. On the theory of action]. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Bourdieu, P. (2000). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique—Précédé de Troisétudes d’ethnologie Kabyle (Rev. ed.) [Outline of a theory of practice precededby three studies of Kabyle ethnology]. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Brown, J. S. (1998). Internet technology in support of the concept of “communi-ties of practice.” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 8,227-236.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organi-zation Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practiceperspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundaryobjects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.




Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2000). Comment on Wenger and Yanow. Knowing inpractice: A “delicate flower” in the organizational learning field. Organiza-tion, 7(2), 269-276.

Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance ofpower relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283-296.

Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generativedance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Orga-nization Science, 10(4), 381-400.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to man-agerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behav-ior, 6, 191-233.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements,media richness and structural design. Management Science, 35(5), 554-571.

De Certeau, M. (Ed.). (1980). L’invention du quotidien [The practice of everydaylife]. Paris: Gallimard.

DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. R. (1999). Communication processes for virtual orga-nizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 693-703.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational imagesand member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigorand comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627.

Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice based theorizing on learning and knowing in organi-zations: Introduction to the special issue on knowing in practice. Organization,7(2), 211-223.

Gherardi, S. (2001). From organizational learning to practice-based knowing.Human Relations, 54(1), 131-139.

Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). The organizational learning of safety in com-munities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1), 7-18.

Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning in a constellation of interconnectedpractices: Canon or dissonance? Journal of Management Studies,39(4), 419-436.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structur-ation. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hayes, N. (2001). Boundless and bounded interactions in the knowledge workprocess: The role of groupware technologies. Information and Organization,11, 79-101.

Hayes, N., & Walsham, G. (2001). Participation in groupware-mediated commu-nities of practice: A socio-political analysis of knowledge working. Informa-tion and Organization, 11, 263-288.

Heaton, L., & Taylor, J. R. (2002). Knowledge, management and professionalwork. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 210-235.

Hiltz, S. R. (1984). Online communities: A case study of the office of the future.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hiltz, S. R., & Kerr, E. (1982). Computer-mediated communication systems: Sta-tus and evaluation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication viacomputer (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.




Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). Knowledge management in communitiesof practice: Being true to the communicative character of knowledge. Manage-ment Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 259-266.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evalu-ating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1),67-93.

Kraut, H., Steinfield, C., Chan, A., Butler, B., & Hoag, A. (1999). Coordinationand virtualization: The role of electronic networks and personal relationships.Organization Science, 10(6), 722-740.

Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture and Activity: An Interna-tional Journal, 3(4), 228-245.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in every-day life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Majchrzack, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. (2000). Technologyadaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtualteam. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 569-600.

Markus, M. L. (1994a). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice.Organization Science, 5(4), 502-527.

Markus, M. L. (1994b). Finding a happy medium: Explaining the negative effectof electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions onInformation Systems, 12(2), 119-149.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Belgium: DeBoeck Université.

Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2001). From global knowledge manage-ment to internal electronic fences: Contradictory outcomes of intranet devel-opment. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 97-111.

Ngwenyama, O. J., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication richness in electronicmail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly,21(2), 145-167.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept oftechnology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practicelens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4),404-428.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability indistributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249-273.

Orr, J. (1990). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University.

Pan, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (2003). Bridging communities of practice with infor-mation technology in pursuit of global knowledge sharing. Journal of StrategicInformation Systems, 12(1), 71-88.

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decisionsupport systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. W.




Steinfield (Eds.), Organization and communication technologies (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced tech-nology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.

Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronicfrontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rice, R. E., & Gattiker, V. E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. InF. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new book of organizational communication:Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 544-581). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. -C. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory conse-quences of IT: Theoretical directions and methodological implications.Informations Systems Research, 10(2), 167-185.

Ryan, B. (1998). The corporate intranet: Harness the power of the next-generation intranet. New York: John Wiley.

Scheepers, R., & Damsgaard, J. (1997, November). Using Internet technologywithin the organization: A structurational analysis of intranets. Paper pre-sented at the Group 97, Phoenix, AZ.

Sole, D., & Huysman, M. (2002, December). Communities of practice and the roleof location: Revealing limits of virtuality and knowledge. Paper presented atthe 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, A. C. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the net-worked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machineinteraction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1987). Media symbolism, media rich-ness, and media choice in organizations. Communication Research, 14(5),553-574.

Vandenbosch, B., & Ginsberg, M. J. (1996). Lotus notes and collaboration: Plus çachange . . . Journal of MIS, 1(3), 65-81.

Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite,C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, tele-work and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organi-zation, 7(2), 225-246.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities ofpractice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research. London: Sage.Zack, M. J. (1994). Electronic messaging and communication effectiveness in an

ongoing work group. Information and Management, 26, 231-241.Zack, M. J., & McKenney, J. L. (1995). Social context and interaction in ongoing

computer supported management groups. Organization Science, 6(4), 394-422.




Emmanuelle Vaast (Ph.D., Ecole Polytechnique) is an assistant professorin management of information systems at Long Island University’s Brook-lyn campus. Her research interests include the situated practices of infor-mation technology, their role in the transformation of work environments,and their relationships with social representations of work. Her researchhas been published in Information Research and Systemes d’Informationet Management.




from communities to networks of practice through intranet use

Documents

practice nops

local cops

network of practice

members of local communities

thesituatedness of practice

networks of practice

social context of communities

use of intranets