In this case CoP has become a term to mean a certain kind of software, to enable people, presumably remote from each other, to do certain things together.

I tell new facilitators that I’m not creating them a CoP, but instead an online space where they can communicate, coordinate and share. Their community already exists, I’m just helping them with an online space to carry on.

They are sick of email chain discussions and want more than a telecon, they want something where you can perpetually be aware of what everyone is up to.

Our software is called “CoPs”, which is a drag since they are not only being used by cross-functional interest groups. These same tools are being used for support, ideas, team tasks, etc…
Anyway, when teams and cross-functional groups are located all over the world, and online space makes it feel local.

Of course software is not defining the group, but software helps to overcome the limitation, or instead complement, synchronous communications.
All communications, coordination can be public by default (compared to email being private by default). When you think of it knowledge work (conversations) will be in the open…now managers can understand what people really do.

Also an online space, makes people visible, an engaging place to hang out, to sensemake, to build a reputation.

In this post I mentioned our online CoPs are empowering http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/05/11/enabling-communities/

I have run lots of teams without software. I also don’t see why CoPs need software - Wenger’s book called Communities of Practice focused on insurance assessors who did not have special software, rather their CoP evolved from their work practices. In fact, you could argue that it only became a CoP when Wenger defined it as such.

http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/03/12/conversations-that-revolve-around-task-objects/

I guess my post is a general framework, I was attempting to explain the dynamics, but yes there is a blur

Actually I split this post into two, so tomorrow’s post will reveal my motivation I guess.

The issue I’m having is that teams need software that is designed more than for just sharing and learning, they need it to revolve around tasks eg. Basecamp vs Clearspace
In this case if a CoP needs to do tasks as well, then they may be better off using Basecamp over Clearspace as well.

Etienne Wenger has some great slides and comments about how teams and Cops differ. Right now here is the one I can find, but there was a different one I had in mind! http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/1317.html

I think it is slightly tricky to use what software a group uses as an indicator though, because people use software in very creative and often unexpected ways. But for me, the clearest distinguishing indicator is the purpose: teams have a shared task with interrelated goals. CoPs have learning as their agenda.

Simplifications aside, the bottom line, the one really important thing I’ve learned from Etienne is not to get hung up on if a formation is a team or a CoP, but be able to examine the group’s practices from a perspective that helps either make sense of the group or aid in its design and functioning. So we can actually look at teams with a CoP perspective if we care about their learning, and CoPs from a team perspective when a CoP decides to do a project together (which is something CoPs often do - one of the 9 “orientation” we have laid out in the upcoming book, if we ever fricken finish it!

Does that make any sense?