Based on the outcomes of my second cycle action the following research question was used for the third cycle:
If I meet one-on-one with each member of my team to ask how they could see using the SharePoint to collaborate, if they see evidence of a CoP on our team, and for their assistance in understanding how to measure the success of my actions, will it result in increased use of the SharePoint to build shared knowledge and lead to identification of effective measures of success for my Action Research Project?
Building community through dialogue.
Increasing Group Participation through Individual Conversations
My plan for my third action for my Action Research Project is to meet individually with each member of my team and gather their direct input on projects they could personally see using the SharePoint for that would allow for others to contribute and build new knowledge together in the process. I will also be asking for their ideas regarding measures of success for the team in terms of use of the tool and the building of the Community of Practice.
Interviews have been suggested to be a meaningful activity contributing to the success of Community of Practice development, as Wenger et al. (2002) explain:
Interviewing potential members is a very useful way to discover the issues they share and the opportunities to leverage knowledge. Interviews can also serve to introduce the notion of community. This is the first chance to discuss the community’s potential value to individuals and to the organization. For this reason, interviews are conducted more as discussions than traditional question-and-answer interviews. These interviews not only identify the potential value of the community, they also begin to identify its potential scope, membership, and hot topics around which to link community members. (p. 79)
Cycle Three Process:
- Send a pre-meeting email (4/13) to my team letting them know that I will be inviting each of them to a 1:1 meeting to discuss my project and get their input on the process.
- Schedule the session with each member of my team (13 individuals), completion goal is 4/21.
- During each session, ask the following three questions:
- What ideas do you have for projects you might be able to use the SharePoint for that allow members of our team to also contribute their knowledge?
- What do you believe would be the best ways to measure the success of our team’s use of the SharePoint to collaborate with each other?
- Is a Community of Practice evident within our team? If so, how is it seen? If not, what might be barriers?
- Review the accumulate data from the sessions and apply it to measure the success of the action.
Assumptions:
I engaged in my third cycle action with the assumption that by showing each team member how they can use the SharePoint themselves to create a space for social knowledge building they will feel an ownership of the process and begin to use this as a way to invite other members of the team to contribute to their efforts. From the standpoint of measures of success I believe I will get many quality ideas for how to show that social knowledge building is taking place within my team.
Action Research Project Context:
The context of my Action Research Project has not significantly changed since the Second Cycle. As indicated in my Cycle Two report, there has been ongoing development of the corporate-wide Learning and Development Community of Practice which started as bi-weekly lunch meetings I arranged between my team and a two other learning and development teams from other business units. This group has now moved to the legitimized stage within the corporation (Wenger, et al., 2002). Participation by members of my team in this growing community has been evident but not to a high percentage and is being used as a secondary indication of the growth of a more formal Community of Practice within my direct team.
Action Outcomes:
The action that I sought to study for my third cycle was how purposeful, personal interaction with each member of my team on a one-to-one basis would translate to increased interest and participation in using collaborative learning technologies, in this case a SharePoint. The action also centered on gauging awareness and understanding of the concepts related to a Community of Practice and to what degree that awareness reflects in community-based knowledge building and sharing activities. Finally, there was a component of measurement included in the action by way of each member of the team providing his or her input on how to best measure the success of my efforts.
The process of meeting with each team member to complete an interview took place over a three-week period and extended several days beyond the initially planned completion date. The extension of the time line was primarily due to priority projects for both my team members and myself, in some cases, that lead to rescheduling many of the sessions. In some cases the rescheduling occurred up to three times for an individual.
Each of the interview sessions was scheduled for a 30-minute period and took place in an open area that was semi-private. In all but a few cases the time frame was adequate for a thorough dialogue for each of the three questions. There were three noted instances where the time ran out or other responsibilities did not allow a full discussion of the final question. In these cases the opportunity remains to revisit the question with the individual, as available. Notes for the sessions were captured in writing by myself and the decision was made not to use any technology to capture the interactions. All members of my direct team participated willingly in the interviews and there were no indications of reluctance by any members of the team to engage in the interview process.
Starting during the interview process and continuing from that point there has been an increase in activity around the SharePoint, including requests for assistance in working on specific projects with the SharePoint and proactive use of the tool to build and share knowledge within our team and across the business. The discussion of evidence section will include details of this increased activity.
Evidence Collected:
The evidence that I was able to collect for the third cycle of my Action Research Project was in the form of personal interviews, SharePoint participation (usage metrics), informal discussions with team members, and other observational data. The following is a break down of my evidence by type:
Personal Interviews:
The focus of my Third Action Research Cycle was to perform individual interviews with each member of my team. This was accomplished over a period of days between 4/20/09 and 5/5/09. After completing the interviews the data was reviewed, typed, and coded to determine trends and themes within the information shared during the interviews. Tables 1 through 5 include the results of the coding of the data. While the interviews took place with the 13 members of my team, the n value for Tables 1 through 5 is not 13, but rather includes each time one of the key attributes being coded was mentioned within the context of the interview process.
Key themes presented themselves from the interviews including barriers to participation in the form of time constraints, lack of knowledge of how to use the SharePoint, and affinity-based concerns that restrict participation based on limited interaction between some members of the team. As one of the interviewees stated, participation “relies too much on everybody being friends – not always going to happen.” Another interviewee mentioned volume of information on the SharePoint as a barrier which aligned with Wenger’s (1998) assertion that, “ information by itself, removed from forms of participation, is not knowledge; it can actually be disempowering, overwhelming, and alienating” (p. 221).
The majority of my team believes a Community of Practice exists, and perhaps even several, based on context. Only one team member did not see the team as a Community of Practice, but rather simply a community at this point. The perspective shared was that to some it may be a Community of Practice but that it depended on the “intrinsic motivations.” One team member indicated the belief that the practice central to the community was employee development and went beyond specific events.
Based on the research I have completed, my team is largely an “operational team” that also includes “project teams” as the efforts are focused on extrinsic goals and not based on “personal investment” in a common interest. There are indications of sporadic “bootleg” Community of Practice activities between specific team members and based on shared interests and passions that go beyond completion of tasks and projects (Wenger et al., 2002).
The following data points were of note from the interview process:
- 11 of 13 team members have an idea of how they could collaboratively use the SharePoint for a current need. Of the two that did not indicate a current need, both were not resistant to the tool, but indicated they had no immediate need.
- 9 out of 10 team members believe a Community of Practice exists on the team. In this case n=10 as time constraints did not provide an opportunity for three of those interviewed to answer this question. Of the 10 who did answer the one that did not see a Community of Practice did note there is a community, but by their definition they did not see evidence of a true Community of Practice but more work-related team interactions.
- Usage reports and speed to market of learning materials were most often mentioned as measures of success.
- Single-source of knowledge and the ability to share knowledge (collaboration) were most often suggested as perceived values for the SharePoint.
Table 1:
| Perceived Barriers to Community of Practice (type) | Count |
| 5 | |
| Not something that is top of mind | 3 |
| Affinity (based on being friends) | 2 |
| Discomfort with use of the tool (SharePoint) | 2 |
| Team organizational structure | 2 |
| Ownership of projects (control) | 2 |
| Distance between participants | 1 |
| Lack of involvement | 1 |
| Uniqueness of work | 1 |
| Unsure how to participate | 1 |
Table 2:
| Barriers to SharePoint use (Type) | Count |
| Need training | 4 |
| No current need | 2 |
| Unaware of all the tool offers | 2 |
| Large amount of info to filter through | 1 |
| Unclear who maintains | 1 |
Table 3:
| Measures of Success (Type) |
Count |
| Usage Report (metrics) | 6 |
| Speed to Market | 4 |
| Mindset shift observed | 3 |
| Successful completion of projects | 3 |
| Too Early to tell / Hard to measure | 3 |
| Quality/content of meetings changes | 2 |
| Reduced amount of meetings | 2 |
| Removal of tool would negatively impact work | 2 |
| Able to stop using other tools/processes (In favor of SharePoint) | 1 |
Table 4:
| Real or Perceived Value of SharePoint (Type) | Count |
| Single Source / Version control | 6 |
| Sharing knowledge / collaboration | 5 |
| Generally see a value in the tool | 4 |
| Transparency of information sharing | 3 |
| Avoid duplication of effort | 1 |
| Reduced email | 1 |
Observable Behavior:
Throughout my third cycle I continued to use my Action Research notes to catalog and reflect on the observable behaviors of others on my team and within my organization to gain a deeper understanding of how my actions affect those around me and what I can learn from their reactions and subsequent actions. These reflections indicate a steady increase in interest and use of the SharePoint for collaborative processes. A noted difference from what was observed in my second cycle was the increase in proactive, non-prompted use, or desire to use, the SharePoint for collaborative projects. The data in Table 5 represents a period of time between 4/1/09 and 5/14/09 which corresponds to the rough time frame of my third cycle. Based on a comparison of data between my second and third cycle the amount of interest and positive response is increasing as I noted more observed behaviors in a shorter amount of time in cycle three as compared to cycle two.
Table 5:
| Noted behavior |
Count |
| Request for assistance, help, or input | 7 |
| Expressed interest or positive reaction | 6 |
Informal Discussions and Dialogue:
In addition to the formal interviews that were the core action for the third cycle of my Action Research there were also a significant number of information discussions and dialogues that took place with team members. Wenger, et al. (2002) note that informal “networking” with community members outside of formal community structures is a key to the ongoing health and growth of the community. Of these informal interactions, many have been collected in my Action Research notes and are reflected in various tables and results within the evidence represented in this report. Many such interactions were not of particular note in terms of detail, but nonetheless were part of the myriad interactions that constitute an observable change in behavior and action within my field of action. Within the context of my third action there was a noticeable increase in positive dialogue associated with concepts of Communities of Practice and the SharePoint in particular.
Participation in Corporate-wide Community of Practice:
In parallel with my efforts to encourage Community of Practice growth within my direct team I have been instrumental in starting a corporate-wide Learning and Development Community of Practice that has moved from the “bootlegged” to “legitimized” form as described by Wenger et al. (2002). The formal sessions for the community are held bi-monthly. From the period of February to May, the average attendance at the events is 13 individuals with my team making up roughly 30% of the attendees. Within the aforementioned dates 6 out of 13 of my team members have attended at least one of these sessions. Participation to some extent by close to half of my team indicates an interest in community activities and involvement.
SharePoint Participation:
The SharePoint tool includes usage reports based on user activity. While it is difficult to assign a specific value to the data in terms of how it may or may not indicate growing participation within a Community of Practice, the results do allow for a comparison, over time, of use of the tool in particular. The following two graphs (Figures 4 and 5) provide data related to unique visitors to the SharePoint day-by-day for a 30 day period and on a monthly basis. This data may also includes users from outside my immediate team. Table 9 includes team-specific results, as recorded in my research notes.
Figure 4: The number of unique visitors to the SharePoint site from April 10 to May 8.
Figure 5: The average unique users per day over a six month period.
Note: As this SharePoint is also used by the broad Learning and Development Community, which has been increasing in activity, I have filtered through the usage data and leveraged observational data which is represented in Table 6. This data indicates a high level of participation and/or interest in the use of the SharePoint and was recorded in my Action Research notes.
Table 6:
| Action | Number | Percentage |
| Team members who have accessed the SharePoint | 13 of 13 | 100% |
| Team members who have asked for assistance with the SharePoint | 8 of 13 | 61.54% |
| Team members proactively using the SharePoint (not seeking input or assistance from me) | 6 of 13 | 46.15% |
Reflection:
The third cycle of my Action Research Project brought me to a more personal level of interaction with my team and from this interaction I have seem some of the most significant indications of the change that is taking place outside of myself within my field of action. By sitting down in a relaxed, but structured, session with each member of my team I have gained candid feedback and input about my efforts that will direct my actions going forward as I continue to drive for change
that aligns my work with my values. I see this as a further extension of the invitation to participate in both the community and the use of the SharePoint as a knowledge sharing and building tool that I began with my second cycle.
Based on the interviews that were completed in this cycle, and the observational evidence that I collected throughout the cycle I believe that my team has several examples of Communities of Practice within its structure. These Communities of Practice overlap and extend outside of my team to include other individuals and teams based on shared interest or practice, such as reading clubs, and gender and ethnic-based community networks. Where I see the challenge for my team is in legitimizing some of the Communities of Practice and moving them from the “unrecognized” or “bootleg” forms to a more recognizable and formalized place within
the structure of the team (Wenger, et al., 2002). As noted in the data collected from the interviews there are many barriers to the formalization of these Communities of Practice, including time, issues related to affinity, and issues related to access whether it be distance or ability to utilize available knowledge building and sharing tools effectively.
As I reflect on the outcomes of this cycle I feel very clear on the current state of my team in terms of growing as a Community of Practice and believe I am better prepared to provide the leadership, guidance, and support necessary to continue to move forward in leveraging collaborative web 2.0 tools to participate in knowledge building processes that center on common development interests. Prior to sitting down with each individual on my team I was unclear of the specific views each person had of the efforts I have been taking to advocate and support change within our team. As a large part of Action Research is about becoming better at predicting the outcomes of actions in a given context I believe I have made significant gains in this aspect of the process.
I feel that most of the members of my team are beginning to gain a better understanding of what it means to be a part of a community, beyond the business goals and objectives that create the extrinsic motivation to work together. At the same time I am beginning to see signs of willingness to engage in learning how to use tools that support collaborative processes that can be applied to both project-oriented work and also to build and share community knowledge. It has been a tough balance to maintain between the focus on a concept (Communities of Practice) and a method (social learning technologies). At times I know that the balance leans heavily in favor of the tools and that is something that I will be continuing to keep in mind as I move forward in working with my team.
My belief is that I focused on the tools more than the concepts because that can be an easier place to start, or at least seem to be easier. There is a tangibility to a tool that one can begin to have a conversation and interaction around with almost anyone. When you begin to broach conceptual dialogues it can become more difficult to appeal to each individual. My hope is that I have kept a fair mix between the conceptual and tangible and in the process appealed to each person on my team to at least the degree that they are interested. Based on what I have seen through my third action I believe this to be true.
As I think about the change taking place within myself through the Action Reflection process I have seen growth in my ability to reflect in the moment and react much differently to others than in the past. This change has helped me to learn more than in the past, as I begin to gain a deeper understanding of the motivation and feelings of others, rather than reacting to them without thought or reflection. This change is something that has been even mentioned by one of my colleagues who noted that I have been less prone to being frustrated by situations. I have also noted that I feel much more at ease with each member of my team than ever before, even though I have worked with them all for more than two years now.
A continuing area for me to work on is ownership and a sense of responsibility. While these can be valuable motivators, there are times that I let an over-developed sense of responsibility and/or ownership influence my behavior. In particular, when working with someone on the SharePoint if something does not go smoothly I begin to feel responsible, rather than working together to figure out what might need to be changed, I get nervous that the other person will think the tool is not working well and want to abandon it in favor of something they already know. As I continue to move forward with my team I will be asking for their thoughts and input, rather than making assumptions. In this way I hope to keep a building dialogue that allows us all to learn more in the process.
| Action Research Home | | Literature Review | | Cycle One | | Cycle Two | | Cycle Three | | Final Reflection | | References | |